Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Rhodesia

Mr. Turton: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition signed by 96,304 members of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society residing in the majority of constituencies represented in this honourable House. The Petition recites Rhodesia's record of peaceful history and claims her right to be recognised as an independent sovereign State.
The Petition prays, first, that the call of the United Nations for increased sanctions against Rhodesia will not be implemented; secondly, that existing sanctions be removed; and, thirdly, that negotiations be commenced immediately with the Rhodesian Government with a view to resuming diplomatic relations with her as an independent State and so to bring to an end the unhappy divisions between the two countries.
The Petition ends:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Industrial Death Benefit (Appeals)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Social Security in how many cases her Department has appealed to the National Insurance Commissioner against a decision of the local tribunal made in favour of an applicant for industrial death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin): During 1967 there

were 32 appeals by the insurance officer against awards of industrial death benefit made by local tribunals.

Mr. Digby: As there are so few cases, cannot the Ministry afford to be a little more generous to widows who have already won their appeals?

Mr. Loughlin: The Ministry is as generous as possible to widows, but I draw the attention of the Houe to the fact that we are here bound by independent procedures. The insurance officer acts as an independent person when making a reference of this kind, and if ultimately, as in this instance, a case goes to the Commissioner, he too, of course, is completely independent of the Ministry.

Family Allowances

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Social Security for what sociological reasons the increase in family allowances for 1968–69 was arranged so that, when taken in conjunction with reduced Income Tax allowances, they leave married men with four or five children worse off than before at gross earnings of only £1,336 and £1,452 per year, resepectively.

Mr. Loughlin: The object of the tax changes is to restrict the benefit of the family allowances increases to those who most need them. The families quoted received a small additional net benefit in the last six months of 1967-68. Otherwise they will get the same net benefit this year as in previous years.

Mr. Fortescoe: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this apparent discrimination against the large family in no way reflects the strictures, made in a speech sponsored by the London Rubber Company, against the pro-creational proclivities of the British people, by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Loughlin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no relationship between my Answer and the speech of my right hon. Friend. I make it absolutely clear that there is no restriction on these families as he says. With all the tax and family allowance changes together, these families will receive in total the same amount by the end of October this year as they received at the end of October last year.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a married man with three children, who is a weaver earning £18 a week, who claims that the whole of the increase in family allowances has been eliminated by tax changes? Is he aware that I have had other cases at similar wage levels when it has been said that more than the family allowance has been taken by Income Tax?

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend ought to let us have details of these cases, because one has to be careful about these things. I can give the definite assurance that the tax total on the family allowances pre the 7s. and 3s. increases, added to that which has to be paid in consequence of the give and take, result in no additional taxation to these families.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Social Security what is her estimate of the number of families with four children or more who will have lower incomes in 1968–69 than in 1967–68 as a result of increased family allowances and reduced Income Tax allowances.

Mr. Loughlin: The Board of Inland Revenue estimate that about 300,000 families will be affected.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious number of families? Does he still stick to his previous statement that all these 300,000 families will be no worse off in 1968–69 than they were in 1967–68.

Mr. Loughlin: I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that these questions should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Obviously, the Inland Revenue is a matter for the Chancellor—

Mr. Fortescue: Why did you not transfer the Question, then?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman put it down to us. The difficulty is that if we transfer the scream goes up, "Why did you tranfer?"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have many Questions before us.

Mr. Loughlin: But I must answer the Question if it is put to me, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, I suggest that the hon. Gentle-

man now puts the Question to the Chancellor.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Could you ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the House could be told now whether we can choose to which Ministers we put our Questions, since it would be most convenient to the House if we could put all Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Speaker: That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Mr. Pardoe: I hope that everyone is not quite as confused by the Parliamentary Secretary's answers as I am He said that 300,000 families will have lower incomes as a result of these changes. Is that right? Are we to understand that, as a result of these changes, these people will have lower incomes in 1968-69 than they had in 1967–68? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there has been no liaison with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over this?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting excited about this. He must realise that when we are talking about the offsets, that is, the give-and-take principle of family allowances and the Inland Revenue, we are talking about those families who are paying up to standard rate Income Tax. It is the families over that level who will be affected, and they are the 300,000 referred to in the second Question.

Lord Balniel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are absolutely certain that there are families with four or five children who are worse off as a result of the changes being made this year? Is this an accident, or is it on purpose? If it is an accident, will he correct it?

Mr. Loughlin: Let me make it clear that up to the standard rate of Income Tax payment families will not this year be worse off. If one takes a global position in relation to family allowances as a whole, the 300,000 families to which I referred are those in the higher tax bracket than the standard rate.

Mr. Hooley: Would not hon. Friend not agree that it is very strange that hon. Members opposite should clamour for selectivity but object strongly when it is applied to the higher income scale?

Sickness Benefit

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security what figures she has available of the average number of days sickness benefit paid annually to self-employed and employed persons; and if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a breakdown of these figures according to occupational groups.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Employed persons receive on average about 15 days sickness benefit a year whereas the average for self-employed people is less than 8 days. Such information as we have about occupational groupings is for employed people only and is contained in a comprehensive report on an "Enquiry into the Incidence of Incapacity for Work" produced by the Ministry of Pensions; and National Insurance in 1965. Copies are available in the Library.

Old-Age Pensioners (Rents)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will give an assurance that she will retain those powers which enable her Department to meet fully the additional rental costs met by old-age pensioners and others on supplementary benefits when they move into dearer housing accommodation.

Mr. Pentland: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of removing the statutory powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to meet reasonable rents payable by supplementary benefit claimants who need to be rehoused.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that single elderly people often want a second room so as to have occasional visits from relatives or friends? Would he circulate local authorities to make it clear that it is his Department's policy to have the best possible social and economic accommodation available with no extra charge to these people?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir. This is a matter, of course, for the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but if, as I gathered from the tone of his supplementary question, my hon. Friend has any par-

ticular case in mind and would like to draw it to my attention, I should be glad to look into it.

Local Offices (Mergers)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Social Security how many of her department's local offices were merged in 1967 and to the nearest available date in 1968; if she will list the areas concerned; and what further merging is planned for the current year.

The Minister of Social Security (Mrs. Judith Hart): In 1967, offices of the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and of the National Assistance Board were merged in five places, and in 1968 up to 30th June, in ten places. In addition, work was transferred from 40 former National Insurance offices to neighbouring offices in 1967 and from another 11 up to 30th June, 1968. With permission, I will circulate lists of these offices in the OFFICIAL REPORT. By the end of this year, we expect that some 50 to 60 more changes of both kinds will be made. I cannot be more precise because they depend on premises becoming available.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend certain that mergers which have taken place in the past and those which will take place in future have resulted in increased efficiency and not in too much inconvenience? What volume of correspondence has she had protesting about this matter?

Mrs. Hart: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have had no volume of protests at all from people affected by the closures, although I have had some discussion with one or two of his hon. Friends and with hon. Members opposite. What is sometimes not understood is that in almost all cases we keep open a caller office for the public. What is happening is that the backroom work is being merged. Since so many payments are now made by postal draft, this should have no substantial effect on the general public.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In considering these closures, would the right hon. Lady bear in mind the special problems of travel in rural areas, where it is very difficult?

Mrs. Hart: I am intensely aware of these problems and I look very carefully at any proposals which affect the rural areas because of this point, which

FORMER OFFICES OF M.P.N.I. AND N.A.B. MERGED IN NEW PREMISES DURING 1967 AND BETWEEN 1ST JANUARY. 1968 TO 30TH JUNE, 1968


Region
Year
Former Offices
Name of Merged Office


Northern
1968
Sunderland (Southwick) N.I.O.
Sunderland North




Part of Sunderland (Pallion) N.I.O.




Sunderland (North) A.O




Sunderland (Gray Road) N.I.O.
Sunderland South




Part of Sunderland (Pallion) N.I.O.




Sunderland East A.O.




Sunderland West A.O.


Yorkshire and Humberside
1968
Rotherham N.I.O
Rotherham




Rotherham North A.O.




Rotherham South A.O.


London North
1968
Colchester N.I.O. and A.O.
Colchester




Watford N.I.O. and A.O.
Watford


London South
1968
Southwark North N.I.O.
Southwark North




Bermondsey A.O.


South Western
1967
Bristol (Bishopston) N.I.O.
Bristol (Horfield)




Part of Bristol (Central) A.O.




Part of Bristol (Eastville) A.O.



1968
Penzance N.I.O. and A.O.
Penzance


Wales
1967
Merthyr Tydfil N.I.O. and A.O.
Merthyr Tydfil


West Midlands
1967
Birmingham (South Yardley)N.I.O.
Birmingham (South Yardley)




Birmingham South-East A.O.


North Western (Manchester)
1967
Ashton under Lyne N.I.O. and A.O.
Ashton under Lyne


North Western (Merseyside)
1968
Widnes N.I.O. and A.O.
Widnes


Scotland
1967
Bathgate N.I.O. and A.O.
Bathgate



1968
Glasgow (Queens Park) N.I.O.
Glasgow (South Side)




Glasgow (South Side) A.O.




Inverness N.I.O. and A.O.
Inverness

FORMER NATIONAL INSURANCE OFFICES FROM WHICH BACKROOM WORK WAS TRANSFERRED TO NEIGHBOURING OFFICES DURING 1967 AND BETWEEN 1ST JANUARY, 1968 TO 30TH JUNE, 1968


Region
Year
Work Transferred From
Work Transferred To


Northern
1967
Windermere
…
…
…
Kendal




Whitby
…
…
…
Scarborough




Guisborough
…
…
…
Redcar




Saltburn
…
…
…
Redcar




Loftus
…
…
…
Redcar




Appleby
…
…
…
Penrith




Washington
…
…
…
Sunderland North



1968
Alnwick
…
…
…
Part to Ashington








Part to Berwick




Morpeth
…
…
…
Ashington


Yorkshire and Humberside
1967
Driffield
…
…
…
Bridlington



1968
Rawmarsh
…
…
…
Rotherham




Dinnington
…
…
…
Rotherham


East Midlands and East Anglia
1967
Haverhill
…
…
…
Part to Bury St. Edmunds








Part to Braintree




Dereham
…
…
…
Norwich




Ashbourne
…
…
…
Derby



1968
Daventry
…
…
…
Northampton


London North
1967
Biggleswade
…
…
…
Bedford




Hoddesdon
…
…
…
Hertford




Rickmansworth
…
…
…
Watford




Maldon
…
…
…
Chelmsford




Plaistow
…
…
…
Canning Town


London South
1967
East Grinstead
…
…
…
Part to Crawley








Part to Tunbridge Wells




Kennington
…
…
…
Southwark North




Bermondsey
…
…
…


London West
1967
Wallingford
…
…
…
Reading


South-Western
1967
Shepton Mallet
…
…
…
Bath




Shaftesbury
…
…
…
Dorchester




Kingsbridge
…
…
…
Plymouth




Minehead
…
…
…
Taunton



1968
Okehampton
…
…
…
Exeter

also afiects, I think, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie).

Following are the lists:

Region
Year
Work Transferred From
Work Transferred To


Wales
1967
Dowlais
…
…
…
Merthyr Tydfil




Merthyr Vale
…
…
…
Merthyr Tydfil




Rhosllancrchrugog
…
…
…
Wrexham



1968
Penarth
…
…
…
Part to Cardiff (Westgate Street)








Part to Cardiff (Newport Road)




Milford Haven
…
…
…
Haverfordwest


West Midlands
1967
Ludlow
…
…
…
Part to Shrewsbury








Part to Hereford




Evesham
…
…
…
Worcester




Rugby
…
…
…
Coventry


North-Western (Manchester)
1967
Stalybridge
…
…
…
Ashton-under-Lyne




Mossley
…
…
…
Ashton-under-Lyne




Shaw
…
…
…
Oldham




Royton
…
…
…
Oldham




Prestwich
…
…
…
Manchester (Cheetham Hill)




Middleton
…
…
…
Manchester (Cheetham Hill)


North-Western (Merseyside)
1967
Liverpool (Walton)
…
…
…
Bootle



1968
Kirkham
…
…
…
Blackpool




Runcorn
…
…
…
Widnes


Scotland
1967
Penicuik
…
…
…
Loanhead




Peebles
…
…
…
Galashiels




Strathaven
…
…
…
Hamilton



1968
Linlithgow
…
…
…
Bo'ness

National Insurance Benefits

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security on what basis National Insurance benefits are now calculated.

Mrs. Hart: To deal adequately with such a wide-ranging question would require an excessively long answer. In any case the answer would be different for different benefits. If the hon. Member will let me know what particular benefit, or benefits, he has in mind I will write to him.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is not the plain fact that, in assessing contributions and benefits, we have lost all contact with reality in National Insurance? Is it not wrong that 2½ million families should need to take supplementary benefits on top of National Insurance? Has not the time come to wipe the slate clean and reconstitute the National Insurance Fund so that it does what is required of it?

Mrs. Hart: Supplementary benefits, of course, are: a separate matter from National Insurance benefits. I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman is asking me to discuss in a Parliamentary Question and Answer the reality of our social insurance scheme, I must advise him that he would do better to raise it in another way on another occasion.

Earnings-Related Contributions and Benefits

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security whether in order to end the hardship caused to people with low incomes by the cost of the flat rate National Insurance contribution, she will now introduce legislation to substitute an insurance contribution related to earnings.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Social Security when she will publish her White Paper on proposed changes in the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Social Security what progress has been made towards the production of a comprehensive scheme of social security based on graduated contributions and graduated benefits; and when she expects to introduce legislation.

Mrs. Hart: As I have previously made clear, we hope to publish by the end of the year a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for a new scheme in which both contributions and benefits will be related to earnings, and to have the necessary legislation on the Statute Book within the present Parliament.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the


National Insurance contribution will be related to people's capacity to pay, so as to end the present situation in which it has become so high as to be actually a contributory cause of family poverty?

Mrs. Hart: As I have said a number of times in the House in the last few months, the White Paper will put forward a scheme by which contributions will be related to earnings.

Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, before she publishes this scheme, she will discuss it with those responsible for occupational pensions in the private sector, so that there shall be no disincentive effect on those pensions?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman need not be concerned about any failure to consult. We shall be and are very much aware of the need to have the right kind of consultation on this.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend not consider the desirability of publishing a Green Paper rather than a White Paper, so that the House may be consulted before the legislation is introduced? Will she further undertake that this Government scheme will be very different from the Tory swindle which was introduced to finance the existing pensions?

Mrs. Hart: I can give my hon. Friend a total and complete assurance on the last point which he raised. On the first, we envisage that there will be time between the publication of the White Paper and the actual preparation of the detailed legislation for full consideration to be given in the House, and I would suppose that the House will certainly wish to consider and discuss the White Paper very fully. It is a little difficult to envisage a Green Paper on the subject because, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, many of these are highly technical matters and it is not so easy to cover that kind of subject in Green Paper style.

Housewives (Illness and Accidents)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Social Security if she will make a statement on the social security arrangements for housewives who become completely incapacitated, owing to

illness or accident, but do not need to be in-patients in hospital.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and other hon. Members on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 874–6.]

Mr. Campbell: As such persons do not even qualify for supplementary benefits, and as I heard the right hon. Lady make a sympathetic speech on this subject yesterday afternoon in Trafalgar Square, why cannot she now be more definite about future action?

Mrs. Hart: I appreciated the fact that the hon. Gentleman was there yesterday afternoon. I think that this was one of the few Trafalgar Square occasions when we rose above party politics. The hon. Gentleman will know from what I said in Trafalgar Square that I outlined the difficulties of moving, as it were, tomorrow or the day after, into a totally new scheme of this kind.

Mr. Molloy: Despite this Government's all-time record in the raising of social security pensions, this nevertheless makes even worse the position of the ordinary housewife who is incapacitated. Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider meeting the officers of the Disablement Incomes Group to go into detail concerning this problem?

Mrs. Hart: I assure my hon. Friend that on a number of occasions over the last few months I have met Mrs. du Boisson and other officials of the Disablement Incomes Group and we have discussed the whole range of problems involved here.

Lord Balniel: As I shared the platform with the right hon. Lady, might I ask her whether she accepts as a principle that disabled persons who cannot contribute to the insurance scheme and cannot receive supplementary benefits should be brought within the social security system?

Mrs. Hart: . I think that I implied as much yesterday. I said that I recognised that there is a gap here. I explained the historical reasons why the gap existed and what I believe should be our philosophy of social insurance to enable us to cover the gap in our social security system.

Social Services (Abuses)

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to introduce measures to prevent abuses of the social services.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to publish her proposals designed to deal with fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

Mrs. Hart: My Department has many well established checks designed to limit abuse of the schemes it administers. Plans are now well advanced to intensify these checks on able bodied unemployed people when they could reasonably be expected to find work. I shall indicate what these are very shortly.

Mr. Tapsell: While recognising that only a tiny minority cheat in this way, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady agrees, as she seemed to indicate in a recent speech in the country, that it is extremely important to maintain public confidence in the working of the social services by instituting the most rigorous safeguards against abuses of this kind?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, indeed. In the very interesting debate that we had on Friday, I think we all examined various aspects of the problem. I am very much concerned about the reflection on our social security system that arises in the minds of the general public when they observe this tiny minority of cheaters getting away with it. For this reason I am proposing to tighten up in one or two respects which I shall make clear shortly. But it is extremely important that we in this House at least get the right balance and understand that it is only a small minority.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister consider breaking down as between the regions the figure of 451, which was the figure she gave in the debate last Friday? Is the Minister also aware that her interjection in the debate was very interesting in that she said there were certain ex-public schoolboys who were cheaters in this regard?

Mr. Winnick: Old Etonians!

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister give us the specific figure?

Mrs. Hart: Not without advance notice. It is certainly true, and it is within my own experience on the basis of visits to offices in the London area, that there is a very tiny minority. We are considering only small figures, but there is undoubtedly a tiny minority of very well educated middle-class boys in the London area who apparently regard it as their right to receive social security support. I am as concerned about them as I am about the cheaters we find in other regions of the country in social groups less fortunate than they.

Occupational Pensioners (Unemployment Benefit)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to introduce Regulations following the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of paying unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners.

Mrs. Hart: I hope to refer draft Regulations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the near future.

Mr. Baker: Is the delay in implementing the recommendations of this Report due to the Minister not entirely agreeing with all the recommendations? When the Regulations are presented, can the right hon. Lady assure us that we will have a chance to debate them?

Mrs. Hart: To answer the last part of the question first, when the Regulations are presented there will automatically be a debate in this House to consider them.
On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite wrong in drawing any such conclusion. It is normal on matters of this kind for the Minister concerned to have ample time to discuss the proposed changes with interested parties. Over the last two or three months I have had a considerable number of discussions with interested bodies. But I am preparing to refer the draft Regulations shortly.

Mr. Worsley: Can the Minister indicate whether these consultations have included those interested in Service pensions, because they are concerned about some of the provisions in this Report?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, they have.

Low Income Families

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Social Security how many families with fathers in full-time work she estimates will be living below supplementary benefit level after 7th October, 1968.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Social Security what is the total number of families she estimates will be living below supplementary benefit level after 7th October, 1968.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on 10th July, and to my remarks in last Friday's debate.— [Vol. 768, c. 99.]

Mr. Baker: Has the Minister any proposals to give real incentive to those breadwinners in families with very low wages to continue to stay in work and thereby forfeit their right to supplementary benefit rather than to stop work and move to a higher level of supplementary benefit out of work?

Mrs. Hart: I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman, after such a short time in the House, has immediately perceived a point which I have been making in every debate on social security since I became Minister, namely, that the fundamental problem is that we have raised the level of social security payments, as it was necessary and right that we should, but that below that level there is a small minority whose wages do not match up to the level that the State guarantees. This is a very real problem and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it.

Mr. Hill: In last Friday's debate, the Minister said that she could not give these figures. Is it not a strong probability that the number has in fact increased? Could the Minister say whether proportionately it is a more serious problem in rural areas than in urban areas?

Mrs. Hart: No, I do not think that it is. It naturally occurs more frequently in those regions and areas where wage levels tend to be low. If asked what I propose to do about it, this, of course, is tied up with the whole economy of the country. It is also linked with the

degree to which trade unions and employers, in making wage agreements, succeed in establishing proportionately higher increases for the lower paid than for the better paid.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the application of the £15 a week minimum income will go a long way to rectify this situation, and that the employers could take some initiative in this regard?

Mrs. Hart: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I think what is really encouraging is that during the last six or seven months there has been an increasing amount of discussion within and without the trade unions about this problem. To the extent that that is so, I am optimistic that we can look forward to what will inevitably be a gradual, steady improvement in the position of the low-wage earner compared with the high-wage earner.

Mr. van Stranbenzee: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she proposes to protect families with one child living below supplementary benefit level from the price increases following devaluation, in view of the fact that they will not be helped by current increases in family allowances.

Mr. Loughlin: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) on 8th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 876.]

Mr. van Straubenzee: Did not that reply, which naturally I have in my mind, show how very indiscriminate and unselective are increases in family allowance payments right across the board and, therefore, that they do not help an identifiable group which could, under other circumstances, be more effectively helped?

Mr. Loughlin: I am not too sure whether the hon. Gentleman is now complaining that we are increasing supplementary benefits. If so, that is not the question which he put on the Order Paper. I have a great deal of sympathy with a number of families with one child. As my right hon. Friend said in a recent debate, the only way that we can see of assisting these families is through free school meals and rent and rates rebates.


I do not think that it is possible to include them in the family allowances scheme.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to launch the general entitlement campaign to ensure that low-income families are aware of the various forms of help available to them which she is planning.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Social Security why the campaign to inform low-paid workers of their rights to exemption from prescription charges has been deferred; and when it will take place.

Mrs. Hart: It is starting this month.

Mr. Barnes: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in addition to the very large numbers of leaflets which she has had printed she will also use the Press, radio and television to try to motivate people to get benefits if they are qualified for them?

Mrs. Hart: I am considering this in the hope that it will be possible to use this campaign not only for the purpose of ensuring that people have the benefits to which they are entitled but to try to indicate the type of response people have to different approaches of this kind. That, I think, in itself would be a rather useful exercise.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that information is also broadcast firmly to those people—such as Members of Parliament, councillors and social workers—who are called upon to advise people about these proceedings?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, indeed. I shall be writing to Members of Parliament concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of us."] —in the first stage of the exercise, and also to the local authorities. This is a matter of stages. The campaign is beginning this month, and certainly, as hon. Members are affected, I shall be communicating with them because I think they can give enormously valuable help.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Lady write to all Members of Parliament, first of all, and bearing in mind particularly the agricultural areas, lay special emphasis on using local Press and television for people living in remote coun-

try areas, so that they may be made aware of the benefits available to them?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, indeed. There is a particular job which the local Press, radio and television can do here. Because of the complexity of the various means-tested benefits in local areas, my leaflet cannot tell everybody wanting assistance what level of income he would have to have to get a particular local benefit. Some amplification of my leaflet could very usefully be done by local agencies, and I shall certainly consider that.

Disabled Persons (Wage Stop)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Social Security how many disabled persons have been helped so far by her Department's recommendations on the administration of the wage stop that the requirement to register for work could be removed and with it the obligation to apply the wage stop.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on 11th June on this subject. Disabled claimants subject to the wage stop have, of course, benefited very considerably from the decisions of the Commission already implemented, and from the increases in family allowances—[Vol. 766, c. 24.]

Mr. van Srraubenzee: While I appreciate the Answer previously given, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady, particularly after her experiences yesterday, does not appreciate that this Question deals with only a small section of those to whom she was addressing her remarks? Does not she feel that the suggestion made in the Question would, if quickly implemented, be of real effect to a large number of disabled people?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, I think that it will. We certainly intend to implement it as quickly as we can. What the hon. Member does not, perhaps, appreciate is that every disabled case on the wage stop has to be examined individually by a member of my staff in consultation with the Department of Employment and Productivity and, perhaps, with the local authority. It is bound to take time simply to work one's way through the number of cases, but the process is now going on as fast as we can conduct it.

Additional Contributions (Pensions)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will seek to increase the increment in pensions received after retirement due to additional contributions paid after retirement age by those who continue in work, to an actuarial level.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. Increments are complementary to the retirement condition and are not solely an actuarial matter.

Mr. Hill: If it is the Government's policy to encourage people to continue in work after reaching normal retirement age, is it not markedly inequitable that they should receive less than their actuarial entitlement later on? Does that happen in any other part of the pensions provision?

Mr. Pentland: The opportunity to earn increments has never been one of the major factors influencing decisions to defer retirement until after pension age. The financial attraction of earning, the ability and, in many parts of the country, the opportunity to continue at work are much more important

Pensions (Payment)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make arrangements for retirement pensions to be paid during the first week of entitlement irrespective of the pension pay day.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider amending the National Insurance (Claims and Payments) Regulations (S.I. 1948, No. 1041) to provide more flexibility in the payment of the first instalment of a widow's pension.

Mr. Loughlin: The present system of weekly payments normally provides a payment of a week's benefit within at most a week of death or retirement, as the case may be, and links naturally with the customary methods of paying wages.

Mr. Worsley: Will not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the present rules have the curious effect in some cases of depriving a person at a very difficult time of nearly a week's benefit? Would it not be worth looking at this again?

Mr. Loaghlin: That is news to me. I had not seen that aspect. There is a week's delay in payment of benefit, but there is no depriving of the applicant of the benefit to which he or she is entitled.

Supplementary Benefits (Claimant)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Social Security on how many occasions, and on what date, a 38-year-old bachelor, whose name has been supplied to her, has obtained supplementary benefit at Bristol, Yeovil, Truro, Bournemouth and Weymouth; what is the total amount he has received; and on how many occasions he has been gainfully employed.

Mr. Pentland: Since 1959, this man has made 47 claims and has received payments of National Assistance or supplementary benefit amounting to £130 14s. in all. Of this sum, £82 3s. has been paid since 27th February, 1968, at the offices named. In spite of a long history of mental disturbance he had a fair work record until the beginning of 1967, since when he has worked for a few weeks in the spring and one day in August of that year.

Mr. King: Is not this case of a man of 38, with no family responsibilities, wandering from resort to resort along the South Coast and living on taxpayers' money, something of an abuse of the generosity of the Minister?

Mr. Pentland: Surely, the hon. Member will be fully aware of this case. The man in question is mentally disturbed. He has had to live rough many times. Indeed, we think that he has always claimed when he has been entitled to do so. Apart from short periods—and this has been when he has been living rough —he has had his full entitlement whenever he has claimed. I might add that the people in our offices have done everything possible for this man.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us, certainly on this side, consider it somewhat mean and spiteful for this case to be brought to the Floor of the House in view of the mental disturbance from which this person obviously suffers and of which we have now been informed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Pentland: I agree with my hon. Friend. I thought, in anticipation of the Question, that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) would compliment our officers on what they have done for this man.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. King: On a point of order. May I explain, Mr. Speaker, that I asked the office and was not informed of the mental disturbance? Had I been so informed, the Question would not have been put down.

Pensions (Excluded Persons)

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take steps to give pension as of right to those persons over 80 years of age excluded in the National Insurance Scheme when it started in 1948, when she raises the supplementary benefit levels this autumn.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir, because the supplementary benefits scheme provides a supplementary pension for those who need one.

Mr. Tapsell: As this is a small and, by the nature of things, a rapidly diminishing group of people, nearly half of whom are already drawing supplementary benefits, would it not be both administratively simpler and socially welcome if they could be given some pension as of right?

Mr. Pentland: They can have supplementary benefit as of right, as agreed by Parliament. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that 70.000 of the group of non-pensioners about whom he is concerned are already drawing supplementary pension and that the increased rates which will come into force in the autumn will also extend those benefits even to some who are at present not able to receive supplementary benefit.

Unemployed Persons (Earnings and Pensions)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security what steps she plans to take to prevent an unemployed person receiving more in social security payments than he could reasonably expect to earn in his own district.

Mrs. Hart: Improvement of family allowances, which are paid whether a man is in work or not, and the corres-

ponding reduction of National Insurance children's allowances, which are paid when a man is unemployed, have already eased the position and the process will be taken a step further with the changes due in October. Supplementary benefit payments are already restricted, where necessary, so that a person's income is no greater than it would be if he were working full time in his normal occupation.

Mr. Williams: In thanking the right hon. Lady for her Answer to this and previous Questions on the subject, may I ask whether she would not agree with and stress the importance of a man being in employment and also ensure that incentives will be given to such people to go out and get work?

Mrs. Hart: It is because this is very much in our minds that it is important that the increases in family allowances themselves improve the relative position very considerably.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility here lies largely with employers who are paying too low salaries for employment? Would not my right hon. Friend accept that the situation which applies in this Question and also in Question No. 15 will continue to arise to some extent until we have a form of something like negative Income Tax?

Mrs. Hart: No, I would not agree entirely with the conclusion drawn by my hon. Friend towards the end of that question. A number of very difficult problems are involved in the concept of negative Income Tax, some of which can be answered and some of which it is difficult to answer. It is, however, true that low wage earners tend to consist, in part at least, of wage earners in occupations which have traditionally been paid very low wages. There are also special problems such as those of the partly disabled and the disabled worker. These are separate problems requiring separate attention.

Supplementary Benefits (Costs)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Social Security how much the last increase in supplementary benefits cost in the first full year; and how much the previous increase cost.

Mr. Pentland: The increase in supplementary benefits in October, 1967, would have cost about £40 million in a full year taken by itself, but as there was a larger increase in National Insurance benefits at the same time, there was a net saving of £23 million. The wide-ranging improvements introduced in November, 1966, when the supplementary benefit scheme replaced National Assistance, are estimated to have cost in all about £80 million in the first full year, including the payments made to the large number of claimants attracted by the new scheme.

Mr. Williams: Would not the Minister agree that, having pledged himself to help the poorest people in the community, these additional benefits have been lost through inflation?

Mr. Pentland: No, they have not been lost at all. I advise the hon. Member to read last Friday morning's debate, in which he will find an ample answer.

Deserted Wives

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will consider giving some National Insurance benefit to deserted wives in her Social Security Review.

Mrs. Hart: Under the National Insurance Scheme, a deserted wife retains her right to retirement pension and widow's benefit on her husband's insurance, and the husband, when sick or unemployed, can receive dependency benefit for her provided he contributes to her support. Apart from this, State provision for deserted wives is through the supplementary benefit scheme. To have National Insurance benefit for this purpose would involve considerable difficulties.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the right hon. Lady, on reflection, think that desertion ought to be recognised as an insurance risk? What would be the approximate numbers and cost involved in carrying out this proposal?

Mrs. Hart: I must confess to the hon. Member that the same thought has passed through my mind. I will not deny it. It is not so much the cost, it is the sheer difficulty of this. For example, how would one define desertion? What account would one take of the support a wife was continuing to get from her

husband? These are the kinds of difficulties which have led me so far to suppose that we are probably still right to regard the supplementary benefit scheme as being the best and most flexible method of helping deserted wives.

Lord Balniel: Yes, but would the right hon. Lady agree that the whole position of women in the social security system— deserted wives, widows, disabled housewives—should be given the very highest priority in the reconstruction of the scheme?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, indeed I do. I have always taken the view, as one of my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, that social security is to a considerable extent about women, but I think that it does not necessarily follow that one must throw overboard the whole of the existing scheme. I think it means we have to look very closely at the provisions we have rather than replace them with something new.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at least she will move very much more quickly than did the party opposite when it was in power? Would she examine the possibility of having legislation introduced which would make it easier to help wives to get maintenance from their husbands who make no effort to give it?

Mrs. Hart: There has been a recent report from a Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on points connected with this. It is, of course, a question in which we are concerned simultaneously with the courts and with our social security system. There are a great many points here worth a great consideration—that I will certainly agree—but I am not yet convinced that we would be right, as we are asked in the Question to do, to replace the supplementary benefit scheme by insurance benefits.

Chronic Sick and Elderly Persons

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will give preferential help to the chronic sick and persons over 65 years of age when she raises the supplementary benefit levels in the autumn.

Mr. Portland: Such claimants already receive, on top of the basic scale rate, a 9s. long-term addition and this is being increased by 1s. in the autumn.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad that my Question has proved unnecessary?

Supplementary Benefit (Disregards)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will increase the amount of savings and income disregarded for the purposes of paying supplementary benefit when the rates are increased on 7th October this year.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. This would benefit only those who are already living above the normal supplementary benefit level.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that the sharp increase in prices following devaluation has fallen particularly heavily on those who are just above the supplementary benefit level because they still retain some small savings of their own?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, but during the 18 years of the National Assistance scheme disregards were increased only once, and that was in 1959. We think, in general, it is better to improve the position of all recipients of supplementary benefit by increasing the rates of benefit.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the hardest hit sections of recipients is that of those who are not receiving ordinary pension— the people over the age of 80 whom we are talking about? Will he not look at the question again particularly with regard to them?

Mr. Pentland: As I have already said, if these people come within the range of the supplementary benefits scheme, if they have a capital of £800, they will receive supplementary benefit, and in addition to that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has discretionary powers which it can apply in cases of dire need.

Pensions (Entitlement)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for ensuring that all persons entitled to pensions are informed of their rights.

Mr. Pentland: A great deal of publicity and effort is directed by my Ministry to telling people about the benefits of the National Insurance Scheme, but the responsibility for ascertaining his rights must at the end of the day rest with the insured person.

Mr. Montgomery: But does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that those people still in work at retirement age are informed, while those people who retire earlier, possibly for health reasons, and who are, therefore, the needier cases, are not informed? Is there not some way in which the Ministry can do something to tell those people they are entitled to pension, if pension is due?

Mr. Pentland: We do everything possible to do this. The hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked the fact that the Ministry has a very large number of local offices to help people with inquiries, and there is also a comprehensive leaflet, about retirement pension in particular, which is available from our local offices.

Benefits (Payment)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has for altering the provision in the National Insurance Act, 1965, which prevents payment of benefit in respect of any period more than six months before the claim is made.

Mr. Pentland: The National Insurance Advisory Committee has recommended an extension of this and related time limits to 12 months. My right hon. Friend has accepted the Committee's recommendations and will implement them as soon as there is an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Montgomery: But does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary feel that this is a fraud? He knows a case I have brought to his attention, that of the lady who lost pension for four years nine months—a pension which she paid in for. Why do we have this silly regulation? Surely the Ministry should pay her the full amount?

Mr. Pentland: No. We fully debated the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, with whom he is concerned, in an Adjournment debate to which I replied only recently. The National Insurance Advisory Committee pointed out in its


Report that absolute time limits are necessary both to avoid making nonsense of the initial time limits for claiming, and to avoid wasteful administrative expense.

Mr. Worsley: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this in a rather more generous way? Is he not aware of these cases of real hardship, particularly of separated wives who do not know of their husbands' death, or something of that sort? Would he look at it again?

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this and made recommendations only a few months ago, and my right hon. Friend has said she will accept the recommendations.

Large Families

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Social Security what proposals she has under consideration for reducing the payment of benefits to the parents of large families.

Mrs. Hart: None, Sir.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Minister now categorically dissociate herself from the sterile speeches, made by her own Parliamentary Private Secretary and also the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, in which they suggested that the raising of large families is anti-social behaviour?

Mrs. Hart: In fact, the hon. Gentleman may not know that on 4th July, after my right hon. Friend's speech, my own Ministry issued a Press statement in which we said that my right hon. Friend was certainly speaking for himself, and the Government took the view that the size of a family is certainly a private and personal matter. This, therefore, is my view. I believe myself that we are still a very considerable way from the horrors of 1984.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Social Security in what circumstances rent is not allowed in full in assessing the requirements of an applicant for exemption from prescription charges on grounds of low income.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Social Security whether rate rebates are taken into account in assessing the requirements of an applicant for exemption from prescription charges on grounds of low income.

Mrs. Hart: Where there are other people living with the applicant but not dependent on him the rent will be treated as being reduced by their proportionate share. In all other cases the net rent is allowed in full. Rate rebates are taken into account indirectly, in that the net rent is taken as the amount of rent or rates actually paid by the claimant.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in areas like my constituency, where there is a shortage of housing and rents are abnormally high, it is very difficult to make an assessment for children living in the same house? Will she bear this family consideration in mind?

Mrs. Hart: I think that we do pay particular regard to the rental in relation to the particular housing circumstances of the area. I am quite certain that all my local officers will give the most sympathetic consideration to any specific difficulties that may arise in any of these cases.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend also consider that the very fact that there are people who are entitled to rent rebates means that they then suffer another form of disquiet because they feel that if they get a rent rebate their right to a free prescription may be cancelled; that this is going much too far, and that the most sensible thing she can do is to get in touch with her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and get prescription charges abolished?

Mrs. Hart: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but another point that arises is one on which I have just touched; the fact that we meet the difficulty of the variety of means-tested benefits there are as between local authority and Government. This pinpoints the need, of which the Government are already very well aware, to work on the possibilities of simplification that might arise in this field.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Social Security what amount is allowed


for prescription charges in assessing the requirements of an applicant for exemption from prescription charges on grounds of low income.

Mrs. Hart: The charge for one item. This shows whether, by standards laid down in the Regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, the claimant can afford to meet the minimum charge in a week. If it shows that he cannot afford this, a certificate is issued authorising him and his dependants to claim exemption from all charges for a period of up to three months.

Mr. Pavitt: Is not this inadequate? Is it not possible that even the 2s. 6d. may be too much in certain circumstances? With a "season ticket" of 30s. will there be a restriction to a total not exceeding this sum on the number of prescriptions allowed?

Mrs. Hart: I am afraid that this has nothing to do with the particular aspect my hon. Friend raises. The point is simply that only one item is required in order to assess people in terms of exemption on grounds of low income. It has nothing to do with exemption on grounds of chronic sickness or with the special arrangements that are being made for people who, though not categorised as chronic sick nevertheless need a number of prescriptions over a given period.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not clear from the Questions and Answers that this whole scheme has gone completely haywire? Will the right hon. Lady not look at the whole thing again, and consult her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister in order to bring in a scheme that is viable and works properly without all these endless complications?

Mrs. Hart: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the scheme we are now operating certainly bears infinitely less hardly on those who need help than did the scheme operated by his Government.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Society Security whether she will publish the instructions issued to local officers of her Department regarding the administration of the prescription charge scheme.

Mrs. Hart: In my view, no useful purpose would be served by the publication

of these instructions. Particulars of the way in which claims for exemptions from prescription charges on grounds of low income are assessed are available in the guide and claim form P.C.11, which can be obtained from any post office or local office of my Ministry. My local officers are available to give guidance in any particular case.

Mr. Hooley: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend is considering publishing what I believe is called the A Code; in other words, a code of instructions for the general administration of benefits? Would it not therefore be appropriate to publish some information about the way in which this very important form of exemption is to be handled?

Mrs. Hart: The question of the publication of the A Code is very different; the Supplementary Benefits Commission is certainly concerned to look at the possibility of publishing something which will explain the principles on which it exercises all its discretionary powers, Exemption from prescription charges is relatively straightforward and there is hardly anything to add to the details which already exist on the claim form which is obtainable by any member of the public.

Mr. Lipton: Does not my right hon. Friend now realise that in all quarters of the House and everywhere in the country this whole business of prescription charges is now regarded as a complicated fiasco? As the savings will be quite negligible, has not the time already come for the whole wretched business to be abandoned?

Mrs. Hart: If my hon. Friend were as aware as I am of the extent to which people in advance of having to pay prescription charges have claimed exemption in the first week of the operation of prescription charges on the ground of low income, I think that he would at least agree that what the Government have done is to introduce methods of administering prescription charges which really assist people on low incomes infinitely more than was the case previously.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Social Security whether annual bonuses


are taken into account in assessing entitlement to exemption from prescription charges on ground of low income.

Mr. Loughlin: Annual bonuses will fall to be taken into account only in so far as they affect the claimant's current circumstances.

Mr. Molloy: Is it not now patently evident that as the years go on all these special schemes of special exemptions, though reflecting the good will of the Government to try to be fair, will be much more expensive than would be the case if she took the decision now to urge her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to abolish the whole principle of charges for prescriptions?

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot very well see how the question of annual bonuses will increase the cost to the extent of discrediting the scheme.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Social Security how many applications for exemption from prescription charges have been received; and how many exemption certificates have been issued by her Department.

Mrs. Hart: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question refers to applications for exemption from charges on grounds of hardship. In the period from 10th June to 18th June—the latest date for which figures are available—nearly 5,000 applications on these grounds were received, and just over 2,000 exemption certificates were issued. Of these successful applicants only 362 also required refunds. This suggests that of the applicants so far, most have claimed in advance of ever having to pay a charge.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there are lots of poor paid workers who, if the onus is fragmentary, do not feel that they can go for this kind of exemption? Is she aware that she is hitting people like this? Is she further aware that I have run out of inspiration and am full of exasperation, and will she now prevail on her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to get rid of the nonsense altogether?

Mrs. Hart: I am not absolutely clear whether my hon. Friends would prefer that a system had been introduced which did not provide for exemptions on low

income grounds. The tenor of their remarks this afternoon seems to suggest that that is what they would prefer. If so, I can only disagree with them, because to do it in this way is not adding an undue complication to the whole machinery, and it does ensure that we can be a great deal fairer to people on low incomes than was the case when prescription charges were introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the small number of applications that have been received shows that many people entitled to exemption have not understood the scheme sufficiently well to make application? Has she not seen these figures, which show that a 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. drop has taken place in the number of prescriptions following the introduction of the new scheme, and does not this indicate that it has been very harmful indeed?

Mrs. Hart: The figures I have refer to the very first week, because those are the latest figures we have. I find it an extremely encouraging figure in relation to the time there is available for people to apply before sickness begins to bear on them. The hon. Gentleman will realise that in most cases previously, since there were only applications for refunds, one could only measure the number of applications after people had become sick. These are the figures of people who have applied before going to their doctor.

Pensioners (Cost of Living)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will make a further statement on the proposals to establish a cost of living index for retirement pensioners, and the effect it will have on present benefit rates.

Mrs. Hart: Additional information about pensioner households will be welcome but, as the Cost of Living Advisory Committee itself noted in its report, prices are only one of several factors influencing the level of benefits. Over the last few years the growth in the level of the National Insurance retirement pension has so far exceeded the increase in the Retail Prices Index that the picture is not significantly altered by the Index


figures for pensioner households calculated for the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Ridsdale: When benefits were last raised, did the Minister take into consideration that retirement pensioners were being hit more than any other section by the cost of living?

Mrs. Hart: Perhaps I can amplify a little what I have just said. When benefits have been raised by this Government, not only has a rise in prices been taken into account but an effort has been made to increase the real value of pensions. So successful have those efforts been that, far from merely increasing the benefits in terms of rises in prices, we have actually increased the real value of pensions and other benefits by 20 per cent. between October, 1964 and September, 1967.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

European Airbus

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on the progress on the European Airbus.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The evaluation of the project is continuing, as planned, in preparation for an international Ministerial meeting later in the month.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the Minister realise that that is not good enough and that reticence and indecision over this joint project is leading to inevitable failure? Had he not better consider building on the success of Rolls with the R.B.211, withdraw from this scheme, and finance a British project?

Mr. Fowler: We are determined to go ahead with a commercially successful project, but not on a venture which would be merely political and not commercial. We hope that we shall be able to proceed with this project on a commercial basis, but we must allow proper time for evaluation and an agreed programme of Ministerial decision.

Mr. Fortescue: What are the latest indications from Paris and Bonn as to the likelihood of the French and German Governments buying this aeroplane?

Mr. Fowler: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that the German Government have given every indication that they intend that their national airline should purchase this aeroplane if the project is completed successfully. There is no further indication I can give the hon. Member.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

WORMWOOD SCRUBS (BOYS' WING)

Mr. Hogg: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about conditions in the boys' wing at Wormwood Scrubs.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The borstal allocation wing at Wormwood Scrubs has given concern for some time, for, like too many other parts of the penal system, it is overcrowded. Short-term improvements to the conditions are in hand, but no satisfactory long-term solution is possible other than by new building.
As to the specific complaints, it is not true that boys are continuously kept locked in their cells, unless they are undergoing punishment. There were 490 boys in the wing on Friday. There are four workshops and 227 boys were working in them. One hundred were undergoing allocation procedures, and a further 30 were engaged on cleaning parties. Three hundred and eighty have a cell to themselves.
The buildings are over 100 years old and obsolete. Although systematic re-decoration is a continuous process, it cannot overcome the basic defects.
I am examining the prospects of speeding up the transfer of boys to training borstals, although the House will recognise that this may cause a measure of overcrowding in these establishments. Reducing the population of the wing would also reduce the strain on the sewerage system. I am accelerating the programme for replacing beds and mattresses and for further redecorations.

Mr. Hogg: While we all recognise the difficulties about spending Government money in the present economic situation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this is a very disquieting report which he has given to the House? He can count on a great deal of support from all quarters, because we cannot allow our children, even when they are in need of discipline, to be subjected to degrading and insanitary conditions.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the magistrates were fulfilling a public service in drawing attention to this, because public opinion is very fickle on these matters. I have no doubt that the whole of our prison system, which is obsolete and antiquated, needs a high system of priority. There is, I am glad to say, the largest programme of prison rebuilding going on now than at any time during the last century, but it is quite clear that we cannot overcome all the deficiencies in an obsolete system within a relatively short time.
This is a very discouraging state of affairs for those who are working in these buildings. This is a transit camp and those who have continually to work there are up against great difficulties. Nevertheless, they have reduced the population of this borstal from 700 in March, 1966, to 600 last July and 500 today. The staff has increased by 27 in that period from 145 to 172, but there is no solution to this problem short of rebuilding most of the prisons.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend disclose to the House how long these facts have been known to him and his several predecessors over a period of years in order to avoid any misunderstanding or the making of political capital out of the problem? Is it not remarkable that publicity was not given to this deplorable affair until a body of visiting magistrates went to the prison?

Mr. Callaghan: I am constantly endeavouring to give publicity to this state of affairs. I have today invited a Press photographer and a reporter to go to Wormwood Scrubs to see the conditions for themselves, for I see no reason why any of these conditions should be hidden from the public. This has been a situation which has persisted over generations.

Only within the last six or seven years has any attempt been made to overcome the deficiencies which exist.
Perhaps I may say that a new borstal will be opened at Olney this year. Complete rebuilding is going on at Portland Borstal and Dover Borstal and substantial extensions to Hollesley Bay Colony next year. There are further plans in hand, but they cannot begin to overcome the deficiencies which have mounted over several decades.

Mr. Deedes: Further to the questions and answers which have taken place, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Select Committee investigated very fully the whole of this disquieting state of affairs and reported on it in full detail to the House a year ago, and that that Report was ignored? Will he give his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a nudge and remind him that sometimes it is a good thing for the House to take note of what Select Committees tell the House?

Mr. Callaghan: It is quite untrue that the Report was ignored. The Government have been battling against constant pressure from the Opposition to reduce public expenditure within the allocation of resources. I ask hon. Members to think what would take priority between a new school and a new borstal. When it is a question of priority the House must accept responsibility for this situation. We only wake up—although some of us tried to get continuous publicity for it—when a newspaper and visiting magistrates suddenly say that here is a situation which has become intolerable. I want to do my best to bring everybody's attention to bear on these conditions.

Mr. Grimond: Is it necessary to have an institution of this sort more or less in the middle of London? If this is an urgent matter, could a temporary solution not be found by asking the Royal Engineers to adapt buildings outside London, or by using temporary camps for these boys?

Mr. Callaghan: The staff at the Home Office have considered these various alternatives over a period, but a lot of these boys need special treatment and special care. It is not easy to build camps. I have considered whether they


could go into open camps and that kind of thing. We are getting some help by permitting a greater degree of overcrowding—I say this candidly to the House—in some of the other borstals.
Those of us who went through transit camps in the last war know the filthy places they are and in some respects Wormwood Scrubs is a transit camp. We have to speed the through-put of boys in this institution, but that is not just as easy as putting them into camps, because a lot of them need very special care and attention and discipline.

Mr. Oakes: Has my right hon. Friend looked at the other allocation centre at Strangeways, Manchester, to see whether the conditions there are as bad? Would he agree that it is wrong for anyone sent for borstal training to set foot in a prison, because that innoculates him against prison life?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I can assure the House—although I do not think that hon. Members need this assurance—that we do not have to wait for Private Notice Questions for these matters to be brought constantly under review. The allocation centre at Manchester accommodates rather fewer than 300. If I had to make a judgment between that and the Scrubs, I think that I would say that it is rather better than the Scrubs. That is not to say that it is perfect by any means.
In the long term, resources must be made available. If people want public expenditure to be devoted to these buildings, there are plans for rebuilding both allocation centres, both the Scrubs and that at Manchester. But they must take their place against the background of a great many other objectives in the prison service as a whole which will have to be ranged in order of priority.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I did not ask this Private Notice Question to subject him to any form of pillory, but precisely because I realised that it is so difficult to get priority for prison building as it is for other things which we all want, such as schools and hospitals? Will he none the less accept from me that he will get support from this side of the House if he presses his colleagues in this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I acknowledge the spirit in which the Question was asked,

and I hope that I have not implied anything else, but I am bound to say that the House is always in favour of particular types of expenditure but never in favour of expenditure in general. The Cabinet has to discuss these matters as a whole. I am very glad indeed that the magistrates, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and public opinion are focusing upon these issues.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Bearing in mind the run-down in the defence commitments of the country, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of transferring some of these boys to what may become disused Service camps, as that might overcome some of the difficulty?

Mr. Callaghan: I fear that that would not be a satisfactory solution. There is no overcrowding in the normal borstals. It is a particular type of borstal for particular types of boys who need special care that is required here. That is the difficulty which is causing the overcrowding. But I certainly accept my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. If there is any way in which it is possible to use any Service camps, perhaps for some of the boys who do not need special care and attention, I will gladly look at that possibility.

Mr. Sharples: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any boys sentenced to borstal training have undergone the whole of their sentence at Wormwood Scrubs? In view of the long-term prisoners there, does he feel that Wormwood Scrubs is a suitable place for these boys?

Mr. Callaghan: Without notice, I could not swear that no boy has ever completed his sentence there, but I think it an extremely unlikely occurrence. The average boy spends about three weeks to a month there, and boys are committed for minimum periods of six months. Some boys may spend a little longer there than others in rather difficult cases.
I do not think that Wormwood Scrubs is suitable as a prison for anybody. The boys' wing is entirely separated physically from the rest of the prison. Lord Ston-ham has been there this morning, and I have looked at it from time to time.

Mr. Woodburn: Would my right hon. Friend consider relieving the pressure on these places by trying to find out how


many of the boys in borstal have reached a point at which they could be paroled, thus taking some of them out of borstal on parole and leaving room for some of the boys at the other end of their sentences?

Mr. Callaghan: I doubt whether there is much to be gained from that. Pressure is constantly on the governors of borstals to release boys to avoid such overcrowding as that at Wormwood Scrubs. Governors at borstals would probably protest that they are being pushed to release boys rather too quickly at the moment, when they would rather keep them in for a longer time—pushed, perhaps, because we are trying to keep down the population at Wormwood Scrubs.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman also look at the remand home at Ashford, because the Estimates Committee was worried about that? Boys are kept there under lock and key for some time. In any event, does he not agree that we should have a debate on prisons, borstals and remand homes in the near future?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member well illustrates the point when he refers to Ashford. Wormwood Scrubs is, alas, not the only institution where there is overcrowding, or where the conditions are not satisfactory.
The hon. Member asks for a debate on this subject. I have very vivid recollections of the House refusing time for a debate which could have carried on from 7 p.m. I was sitting here waiting to put these problems before the House, but hon. Members declined to have the debate.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend make every attempt, in his review, to take the borstal away from the precincts of the Scrubs? It causes a certain amount of distress among mothers in the area, for, when these boys are placed on remand in the Scrubs, to them the Scrubs has only one meaning—not a borstal, but a prison.

Mr. Callaghan: If that is the desire of some hon. Members, I will look at

that proposition again, but the problem has been considered more than once to see whether we could get the boys out of Wormwood Scrubs. So far, I have not been able to find a satisfactory alternative. I will certainly continue to look.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I believe that the Home Secretary is aware that most of the prison officers working in Wormwood Scrubs are my constituents. Does he not agree that they have complained about these conditions and that they find the conditions just as repugnant as do the offenders? In particular, does he not agree that the Scrubs is quite the wrong sort of prison for any young offenders, even for a week?

Mr. Callaghan: We can all go on complaining about these matters. Indeed, I think that I have covered both the points which the hon. Member made. The question is whether we shall find the resources in order to put them right. I have a record amount of expenditure allocated to me this year for these purposes, but I do not think that we can necessarily pick out the Scrubs in advance of other priorities. I do not think that the House can settle on one institution and say that that is the only one which needs attention. We ought to see all the institutions with which we are concerned and then we could make up our minds between priorities, as I have to do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As an old boy of Wormwood Scrubs 50 years ago, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he does not agree that the place has become more intolerable since then? Is he aware that we expect him to liquidate the place, and to hurry along with greater speed than that with which we are trying to dismantle Dartmoor?

Mr. Callaghan: If all the old lags turned out as well as my hon. Friend, there would be a case for continuing it. But my recollection does not go back to the time when he was there.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Greenwood. Statement.

FLOODS

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I should like to make a further statement about the floods.
At my request, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a tour of the South West on Friday. He found that the local authorities had gone into action with commendable speed and had the situation well under control. Police and firemen, working very long hours, have made a sterling contribution.
The Army has given invaluable help in the restoration of road communications. The emergency bridge at Fenny Bridges was opened yesterday. A bridge at Marsh on the A303 was opened this morning—a day earlier than expected— and the bridge at Pensford on the A37 was also opened this morning to one lane of traffic. All major routes are now open —a remarkable achievement. The A.A. and the R.A.C. have ably assisted the police in traffic control.
In all the welfare work which has been necessary, the W.R.V.S. and other voluntary organisations have been of great help. They were first alerted in the small hours of Thursday morning and responded as once.
The R.A.F. has supplied equipment for drying out houses. The Home Office has made available Civil Defence equipment.
River authorities' flood warning arrangements were generally effective. But there is great difficulty in working out a reliable warning system for very small catchment areas.
In the South West, about 3,500 houses —about 1,650 in Bristol—have been affected; about 150 families have been rehoused. Water supplies have been maintained, but in Bath householders have been advised to boil drinking water.
In the East and West Midlands, the damage, though less serious than in the South West, was severe in some areas. Five hundred houses in Leicester have had to be dried out.
There will be many cases of personal hardship and a number of flood relief appeal funds have already been set up. The Government welcome this initiative and as on similar previous occasions will be pre-

pared to contribute generously to these— and to any other bona fide relief funds which are set up for the purpose—as soon as the extent of the need has been determined. Parliament will be asked to sanction this expenditure by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government by means of a Supplementary Estimate, to be presented in due course. In the meantime, the money will be advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
So far as local authorities' losses are concerned, sympathetic consideration will be given to assistance in the light of the scale of the damage, the availability of specific grants, and insurance cover and the extent of local resources.
I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security that officers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the Ministry of Social Security are co-operating with local authorities in ensuring that needs for food and clothing are met and in visiting damaged homes to provide for the replacement of essential household items.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating the local authorities and all who have co-operated with them, and in again expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with all who have suffered from these floods.

Mr. Rippon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will join him in expressing appreciation of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's visit and of the work done by local authorities, the Services, voluntary organisations, and workers in relieving hardship and mitigating damage?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that floods of this kind appear to have been rather more frequent in the West than in other parts of the country during recent years and to have wreaked far greater damage and caused much loss of life and damage to property? Does he contemplate any action to prevent damage on this scale happening again in the future, whether by setting up special machinery, or otherwise?
Finally, will he give the House an assurance that he will bring heavy pressure to bear on the Treasury to ensure that his promise of sympathetic consideration and financial support is turned into effective action as speedily as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: It is always a pleasure to put pressure on the Treasury.
The first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question raises a very important issue. The river boards and local authorities have regular meetings with the Ministry of Agriculture, and a great deal of attention is paid to securing that there is an adequate early warning system. On the whole, on this occasion it seems to have worked well, although in one case it did not work out effectively, but this is something which I shall call to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be widely welcomed in the West Country? Can he go further and assure the House that tourist traffic should now be able to travel freely in and out of the region, and that it is unnecessary, and indeed foolish, for anyone to change his holiday plans?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having put that supplementary question. I agree completely with what he said. I think that anyone would be most ill-advised if he was dissuaded from going to the West Country because of these events. The West Country has had other blows in the past. It depends to a large extent on its tourist industry, and I hope that the public will bear that in mind in deciding where they will go for their holidays.

Dame Joan Vickers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether compensation will be paid to farmers for the loss of some of their crops, and whether he will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit the payment of S.E.T. by hotels which have been badly hit?

Mr. Greenwood: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the second half of the hon. Lady's question.
Farmers who suffer personal distress will be eligible for the same treatment as other people in the same situation. I am happy to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is going to the West Country tomorrow to get a proper assessment of the scale of the damage to agriculture of the area.

Mr. Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend consult the local authority in Bristol and give it some advice on how to dispose of goods which may or may not have been damaged by the floods? Would he also ask the local authority to try to sort out goods which have been damaged from those which have not? The tip in the news is in my constituency. As I understand, there was no consultation with the police, and we have had some rather regrettable incidents there. The matter ought to be looked into a little carefully.

Mr. Greenwood: I think that everybody must have been extremely disquieted at some of the pictures on television last night of people scrambling to get materials and foodstuffs salvaged from the floods. If the City of Bristol needs advice, the principal regional officer of the Minister of Housing and Local Government is situated in Bristol and is always ready and available to help any local authority, whether Bristol or any other, in the area.

Mr. Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we in North Somerset much appreciate the visit on Friday of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary? We are also very grateful to the Armed Services for the speedy help they have given us. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the stricken areas we are doing all we can to help ourselves. We in North Somerset have set up a number of local funds to give immediate assistance. Perhaps I might ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, what assistance is he going to give to local funds? Will he tell us the details as soon as possible? Secondly, can he let the local authorities in the stricken areas know, so that they realise what information he requires so that Government assistance which we shall undoubtedly need can come as speedily as possible?

Mr. Greenwood: I expect local authorities will be in touch with me fairly soon and will let me know the extent of the damage which they have suffered.
With regard to the flood relief appeal funds to which the hon. Gentleman referred—and I appreciate his keen interest in this problem—I do not think I can go further than say that we will, as on similar previous occasions, be


generous in our contribution, and we hope that the public, too, will be generous in their response.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say what happens in a case such as that which occurred in parts of my constituency where the damage may be very extensive to some householders, but where it may not be on such an extensive scale as to make necessary the establishment of a flood relief fund? How does the householder who may have suffered hundreds of pounds worth of damage in such circumstances make his application—through the council, and, if so, does the council make it to the Government?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that the best way is for the constituent affected in that way to get in touch with the local authority, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be informed by the local authority.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the West Country is profoundly thankful to those who have involved themselves in the rescue and salvage operations? Is he aware that there seems to be some difference between those areas which had remote control rain gauges fixed in the catchment areas and those which did not? After all this has died down, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a leaflet to indicate how effective this has been?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether, when the inspection of bridges is carried out, not only is the soundness of the bridge tested, but an estimate is made of how much water can be allowed through?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman, with all the authority of his Department, assure the potential tourist that the West Country has had all the rain it can possibly have in one year, and that from now on it is sunshine all the way?

Mr. Greenwood: I know that the House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's last remark. When we remember that in one valley 7 inches of rain fell in as short a time as seven hours, we realise the magnitude of the task with which local authorities and river boards had to contend.
I think that I am right in saying that the question of remote control gauges is

a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I shall talk to him about that. As I understand, the system worked reasonably well, but the area which was most badly affected was one where there were not the remote control gauges to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The question of bridges is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who holds the hon. Gentleman in high esteem and will, no doubt, have noted everything he said.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman thanked the W.R.V.S. Does not the whole tenor of his answer show that a wider voluntary body would be desirable on a permanent basis to replace the work of this kind done in the past by Civil Defence?

Mr. Greenwood: I mentioned the W.R.V.S. and other voluntary bodies. There is no evidence to suggest that the existing services and voluntary bodies cannot cope with situations like this. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sees no reason to change his view that the retention of the Civil Defence primarily or solely for the purpose of dealing with peacetime disasters would not be justified.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to ensure that the permanent rebuilding of bridges on certain roads is done above flood level in order to obtain major improvements rather than a return to the status quo?
Would he consider whether the loss of crops on smallholdings, which is not normally compensated, but which in certain parts of Devon has been much the most serious financial loss, can in some way rank for compensation, either from the relief fund or from the Government?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is on the Front Bench with me. He will have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that bridges should be built above flood level.
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question will be considered after my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has paid his visit


to the West Country. It is obviously a most important consideration.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider advising the Ministry of Transport to make a thorough survey of vital bridges into the West Country, so that they can either be rebuilt when the money is available or temporary bridges can be laid alongside them in case of further emergencies?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that it is for me to advise my right hon. Friend on a point of that kind, but I am sure that he will have the matter under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH REGIMENTS (FUTURE)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the decision to abolish Scottish units announced in Command Paper No. 3701.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce that I have not selected either the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on following the precedent set by previous Governments in abolishing Scottish units'.
or the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and his hon. Friends, in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
'whilst accepting the need to reduce the total strength of United Kingdom regular army units towards a level of approximately 150,000 men, urges that, because of their potential for recruitment and service in civil emergency, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and other territorially based units which are to be abolished should be retained as reserve formations'.
This does not prevent the points of view expressed in the Amendments, together with other points of view, being expressed in the debate.

Mr. Noble: My speech today, which, I hope, will be reasonably short, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to express their opinions, will be largely about the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. This is not because I do not fully appreciate the feelings of those connected with other regiments or battalions affected, but because, in Scotland, they, perhaps more than the Scots Guards, are affected. The Scots Guards are losing one battalion; the Argylls are threatened with disbandment.
I should like to start with a story recorded during the Korean War, when the Argylls were serving with an American division. The general of that division,


who was an American, was wakened in the early hours of the morning by his aide and given a signal requiring immediate action. The general shook himself awake and said to his aide, "Bring me my boots. The Argylls and we will get moving immediately." I find this story rather more to my liking than the use which the Government propose to make of their boot in getting rid of the Argylls.
I should also like to make it quite clear that though I am the Member of Parliament for Argyll the question of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders affects much larger areas of Scotland than just the County of Argyll. Our main recruiting areas, apart from the county from which the Argylls take their name, have always been the Counties of Stirling, Renfrew, Dumbarton, Clackmannan and Kinross. I am quite certain that the Government's decision will have brought the same blight of sorrow to a great many families in those areas as it has in Argyll.
We in Scotland felt a great deal of sorrow about the disappearance earlier this year of the Cameronians. Therefore, this is not an isolated incident. I am sure that no Scottish regiment wants to place its own merits above that of any other. It is our view on this side of the House that there should be no further cuts in Scottish regiments or units at all.
When we look at the problem and and understand at least part of the problems which the Government have brought upon themselves, it is fair to consider for a moment the reasons which may have influenced them in their decision. I took part in a television programme last week with an hon. Member who suggested that perhaps the Argylls had been chosen because their commanding officer was less than fully responsible, and that by their action in Aden the Argylls had become the worst ambassadors for Britain in the Middle East.
I entirely disagree with that view, and I believe that it would also be entirely disagreed with by the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom I have spoken in the past, and who has always given it to me as his view that Colonel Mitchell was an extremely efficient and gallant soldier.
The second reason why it was suggested in the television interview that the Argylls might well be dispensed with was that there were many hon. Members opposite who do not want any commitment east of Suez, and, therefore, by implication, as the Argylls have made a great deal of their famous name and tradition in the East, it was perhaps suitable that they should go.
I cannot believe that this is a serious reason for picking one regiment rather than another. It is true that in the last war the Argylls' defence of Malaya and their many actions in Egypt and Europe made them well known to friend and foe alike. It is also true that during the past few years their record in Korea, Borneo, where they have served three times, and Aden have all been outstanding—this in a theatre of war which is particularly difficult for both soldiers and commanding officers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose—

Mr. Noble: Perhaps I may finish my speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to make his own speech later.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has made a specific reference to me.

Mr. Noble: Then I will give way, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Dalyell: The argument was not at that moment about the Argylls in the Far East. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was whether there was a credible operational requirement.

Mr. Noble: Yes, but my point was not to argue the merits of whether there should be a different policy in the Far East. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman said in the television broadcast was that the Argylls might well be dispensed with because of their record in the Far and Middle East. I find this difficult to understand.
It could be that the Argylls have been chosen because in some way they were less efficient than other units who were in the melting pot, if one may use that term. But I cannot seriously believe that that can be held by anybody in the British Army. I may be biased, but I feel that they are probably the best fighting unit in the Army today. I believe that if one went to any unit in the


country its officers and men would claim that position for themselves. But if one then asked them who was the next best unit the Argylls would probably come very high on their list. Therefore, I do not think that there is any question about their efficiency in this selection, and I am sure that the Minister would agree.
Can it, then, be simply a question of money? It is difficult to believe that that is the answer, because it is infinitely more expensive to train and produce a battalion of paratroops than a battalion of the Argylls. If it is just a question of money, the Argylls do not seem to me to be a particularly expensive unit for the Government to maintain.
So one comes back to what the Chief of Staff is reported in the newspapers as having said, that, all other criteria having failed, it must be a question of last in first out. It is difficult to believe that the modern professional Army is to be run in this way. This policy could not operate in any other type of business. The Minister of Defence might think that this was a reasonably good method of dealing with the Cabinet, since on this basis he would be there for ever, having been one of the first in. If that is seriously the reason for the selection of the Argylls, in this day and age, it is a thoroughly bad reason.
If the Minister is right in thinking that units must be cut, and if we are to achieve the small, highly efficient, professional Army which we need, then probably the biggest problem facing the Army today is that of recruiting. The Argylls have always had a good recruiting record, and during the last two years they have been outstanding. To cut the regiment which has the best recruiting record, surely, if we need recruits, does nothing except discourage men from other parts of the country from joining the Army. The cutting of the regiments with the best record of recruiting cannot possibly act as an incentive.
A view held by some quarters in Whitehall is that it makes no difference whether or not a regiment has a local base. None of the great regiments would substantiate that for one moment. General Graham told me over the weekend that he had personally interviewed practically every recruit into the regiment

for many years. Of all the recruits that he had interviewed, 90 per cent. had said, "Sir, I want to join the Argylls", and not, "Sir, I want to join the Army"; and 60 per cent. wanted to join the Argylls because their friends and relatives were serving in that regiment. A large percentage of those serving in the regiment come from the recruiting area of the regiment and there is a great tradition of family and friends serving in it. This is one of the strongest arguments for not abolishing the Argylls.
I have two quotations which I would like to read to the House. The first one comes from a book by Colonel Angus Rose, who was an officer in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. The book, published in 1944, was an unofficial record of the Argylls in Malaya at that time. He speaks of the general principle of the responsibility of people other than the Army for allowing the Armed Forces to get run down to a level beyond which it is impossible to maintain fighting efficiency.
Speaking of the last days in Malaya, he said this:
These I think were the contributory causes that brought about the most ignominous defeat that Britain has suffered since the loss of the American colonies.
I detect there another allusion to Lord North. He goes on:
May it be seen that a share in the responsibility for this defeat must be borne by almost every section of the public. The object of recriminations is to prevent repetitions, so let each one draw his own particular lesson so far as his own duties or his responsibilities as a member of the electorate are concerned. Above all, let the cautious and conventional time servers who have not the interest of the country at heart be cast out.
There are many people who, when they look at the impending fate of the Argylls, feel that this is not altogether an unworthy thought today.
My other quotation comes from a book written by Brigadier Ian Stewart, again about the last day of the campaign in Malaya. He writes:
A detachment of the regiment, after covering the retreat of British and Indian troops, was cut off with very little chance of escape. The last job given them was to hold the pipe line. Three of them, ragged, exhausted and sun-tanned, made their way through a British force holding another position. Told that the Argylls had been wiped out and advised to get some sleep inside the British lines, a corporal said: 'If we are the last of the battalion


then I am senior non-commissioned officer. My last order was to hold the pipe line. If the C.O. is alive, he will be expecting us there. If not, he will expect us to hold the pipe line.' The three turned back towards the enemy.
Today, it is not just these three noncommissioned officers from the Argylls who may be the last of the battalion; it is the whole battalion. This spirit of turning to face the enemy in serious straits is one that wins battles, and I would say to them that they should not despair. The people of Scotland are behind them in their fight to keep the regiment and the tradition alive. As the people of Stansted won their case, so let those who are few in numbers but strong in courage take faith.
We on this side of the House do not accept that these cuts in the infantry are wise or necessary. The Defence White Paper will be discussed in detail next week, but I say to the House that if we return to power before the Argylls are disbanded we shall seek to find a way of retaining an appropriate place for this regiment, with its splendid tradition, with its fine recruiting record and with its high level of efficiency.

4.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) a categorical assurance that it was not the capacity of the present Commanding Officer of the Argylls, nor the Far and Middle East record of the Argylls, nor their efficiency that led to their disban-ment, but I must take the fate of the Scottish regiments in the context of the Army reductions as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it was a painful duty for the Army Board to make reductions. The battalions that have been nominated in the White Paper, and in the White Paper of a year ago, have served with distinction and won fame on many battlefields; their names are household words. All these regiments have played an important part in preserving Parliament and our democratic institutions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have played their part in these regiments and not least in the Scottish battalions which are the subject of the debate today.
However, painful decisions have to be taken, and the House will wish to know

how the nominations were made. The key to the situation goes back to 1962, when the infantry of the line was reorganised. On that occasion, the infantry reformed into 13 brigades, 10 of four regiments and three of three regiments. One of the universally recognised facts of that reorganisation was that it would cater for a variation in the number of battalions, whether more or less.
The House will appreciate that the reduction of a regiment causes less disturbance if it is part of a group in which regimental identities and traditions have become linked, as they have in the case of the large brigades and as they will be in the new divisions. This was the policy in 1962, and we ourselves have carried it a stage further in the new divisions of infantry.
In the light of the experience of 1957, when the party opposite made a number of amalgamations of regiments—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Including Scottish ones?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, including Scottish ones.
It was recognised that, should it again be necessary to cut a number of battalions, it could be achieved by reducing one regiment in each of the larger brigades. That was the Conservative policy, and it was well known to the infantry. It was recognised as a fair and reasonable way of preserving tradition and comradeship. Administratively, it was efficient and flexible.
At the beginning of last year, the defence reductions gave the Army Board the task of making 14 reductions—

Mr. James Ramsden: I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman says was the official Conservative policy about the reductions in the infantry.

Mr. Boyden: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to deal with the Conservatives' policy on the present 14 reductions, but the 1962 reorganisation was based on the same principle as that which is happening now. That is the point that I am making.
There are 14 infantry reductions to be made; and I may say that the reductions proposed in all arms were made only after the most careful consideration. The most careful planning has taken place.


My own impression is that the General Staff who have worked on the plans have been quite outstanding in their ability and are completely respected throughout the Army not only for their ability, but for the fairness with which they have done their work. I make that point for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser).
As far as the infantry was concerned, the Army Board decided that, on the lines of the 1962 policy, each of the larger brigades should be reduced by one battalion. That left four further reductions to be made. The Board decided that it would be unfair and unwise to make a second reduction so quickly in any of the large brigades, so that it was left to the Foot Guards and the smaller brigades of infantry of the line to share the burden.
The policy is perfectly clear and straightforward. The Foot Guards and each brigade and large regiment of the infantry of the line are to be reduced by one battalion. The general principle is the same as in 1962, and that was understood and accepted by the infantry. It is not an easy way out, but we are satisfied that it is fair and, in the long term, is in the best interests of the infantry, the Army and the country.
One of the purposes of grouping regiments into brigades was to even out recruiting as between regiments within the brigade. That will be even more effectively achieved by the new divisions. Because of this, coming straight to the point that the right hon. Member for Argyll made, the recruiting record of particular regiments is no longer quite the significant factor that it once was. In the past, the recruiting records of brigades did not vary to anything like the same extent as the recruiting records of regiments. It is an essential feature of the new divisional arrangement that each one has access to one of the main centres of population. We are satisfied that recruiting will be well balanced as between one division and another.
Although regimental recruiting is important, the supporters of the regiments to be amalgamated or disbanded have tended to exaggerate the significance of local variations for the Army as a whole. Over the Army as a whole, 80 per cent. of men joining simply wish to join the Army and

have no strong preference as between one unit and another. That does not mean that some regiments do not have stronger affiliations and stronger loyalties in their areas. I concede the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Argylls. However, it does mean that to press the regimental concept to the extreme can damage Army recruiting as a whole and can be bad for other regiments.

Mr. John Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyden: No. I want to keep my remarks as short as possible.
In the reductions which we are discussing today, the Scottish share is rather more favourable to Scotland than to England. If the battalions retained were distributed strictly according to the population of the United Kingdom, the result would be as follows. England would have 36 battalions, whereas, in fact, it is planned to have 30 in 1972. On the strict population basis, Wales should have two, but will have three, Northern Ireland should have one, but will have three, and Scotland should have four, but will have seven. Those figures include the Guards but exclude the Parachute Brigade.

Mr. James Davidson: Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West) rose—

Mr. Boyden: I will give way in a moment.
The reductions in Scotland have included the disbandment of the 1st Battalion the Cameronians from the Lowland Brigade. This famous regiment was disbanded two months ago. The House will be glad to hear that nearly all the officers and soldiers have transferred to other Scottish regiments. The amount of redundancy has been very small.

Mr. James Davidson: The point that I wish to make is that Scotland, with one-eighth of England's population, supplies a third of our regular soldiers, although only 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom based Army is based on Scottish soil. In other words, England has one regular soldier per 1,000 of the male population, whereas Scotland has about three per 1,000.

Mr. Boyden: The point that I am making is that, as between England and Scotland, this is a fair arrangement. I do not depart from that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman's figures have anything to do with the fact that the unemployment rate in Scotland is higher than that in England? That may be the reason.

Mr. Boyden: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. Unemployment seems to have no bearing on recruiting to the Army. In a way, that is a good thing.
The Highland Brigade is now to lose one battalion. This is a most distinguished brigade, and the House will appreciate that it was a very difficult task to select the Argylls, the Gordons, or any other of the Scottish regiments for reduction. I agree at once with what the right hon. Member for Argyll said about the Argylls, and I have picked out the most recent records of the Argylls and of the Gordons. Both regiments were at Mons, at Ypres, on the Somme and at El Alamein. The Argylls were at Casino. The Gordons were at Anzio. The Argylls served with distinction in Korea and Aden. The Gordons served with distinction in Malaya, Cyprus and Borneo. I mention these distinguished records to show there is great difficulty in assessing the qualities and other indefinable matters that go to make a good regiment.
With tremendous regret, the Army Board decided that the Highland Brigade should be reduced by the junior battalion of the brigade, the 1st Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. There are two ways of bringing about the reduction of a unit. The first is by amalgamating with another unit. The second is by disbandment. These alternatives were put to the Council of Colonels of the Highland Brigade, and its advice, which was accepted, was that the regiment to go should be disbanded.
Turning now to the Foot Guards, also the subject of today's debate, as the House knows there are at present three regiments of Guards with two battalions and two regiments with only one battalion. It was inescapable that one of the second battalions would have to go and, on the principle of juniority, the 2nd Battalion the Scots Guards was nominated.
At this point, it might be appropriate to say something about the Royal

Armoured Corps. As hon. Members know, the White Paper announced that the Royal Armoured Corps would be reduced by one regiment which would be nominated at a later date. There has been a lot of speculation that this regiment will be the Royal Scots Greys, and all that I can tell the House today is that no decision on the future of the Royal Scots Greys or on any other R.A.C. regiment has been taken. When we have decided how to make the reduction in the Royal Armoured Corps, an announcement will be made.
I want to turn now to the question of how units within brigades are selected for reduction. In general, we have followed the principle that, if other factors were equal, we should select the junior battalion of each brigade or large regiment. This is not to say that we would always work to this principle: we should not do so if there were other overriding factors. But in the case of the reductions announced last week, there were no factors of such significance as to outweigh the principle of juniority.
There have been suggestions in the Press and elsewhere that in selecting units for reduction we should take into account, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, such things as their recruiting records or their qualities as regiments. I have already explained how the brigades of infantry have evened out the previous variations in recruiting as between regiments, so that in this context of unit reductions this is no longer a main factor.
As for the quality of regiments, there is no doubt that certain regiments are noted for their qualities—such as dash, spirit, steadfastness or doggedness. The aim of the Army as a whole is to have these qualities within the infantry divisions right across the board. It would be extremely dangerous, most disheartening and most divisive for the Army if there were to be a kind of auction as to the quality of the regiments. The judgments which would come out of such an approach would be bound to be instinctive and subjective. At different times different regiments are serving in different rô1es in different parts of the world.
It is almost impossible to weigh comparatively the efficiency and valour and other good qualities of particular regiments. If one were to draw up a league table of the qualities of the regiments and


strike off the last six, I can imagine an absolute outcry on both sides of the House, quite rightly. There would be endless recrimination and arguments about discrimination. Nobody would be satisfied that the decisions were fair. It seems to me that the principle that has been adopted in these cases, of juniority, is well understood in the Army; it is hard, but it is fair.
While I am talking about fairness of treatment I would try, as I did in the Adjournment debate on 25th June, to dispose of the myth, raised by the right hon. Gentleman, that Scotland has been singled out for unfair treatment in the rate of reductions. In last week's White Paper the announcement was made of the reduction not only of two Scottish battalions, but of four English units. Since 1950, the percentage reduction, including the Guards, comes out as 44 per cent. reduction in English battalions, a 42 per cent. reduction in Scottish battalions, and the Irish and Welsh battalions have each been reduced by 25 per cent. There is no truth whatever in the statement that has been circulating that there is discrimination against Scotland.

Mr. Hector Monro: Following the announcement of last week's White Papers, am I not right in saying that, although there has been a reduction of only 10 per cent. in English battalions, there has been a reduction of 22 per cent. in Scottish battalions?

Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman cannot pick out this particular short period and make that statement as a valid statement.
Disbanding famous regiments is an unhappy business, the whole House agrees—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?

Mr. Boyden: —except my hon. Friend.
The feeling of deep sadness and regret is not confined to the Scottish regiments. My right hon. Friend and I have received several deputations of members of regiments that it was expected would be amalgamated or disbanded, and I must say to hon. Members who came to see us that they conducted their discussions in a fair-minded and broad way, in the same way as I hope they will receive my

remarks today. This makes it all the more grievous to read and hear some of the wilder statements made about the disappearance of battalions by persons associated with them.
To say, as some people have done, that they do not care where the axe falls as long as it is not on their own regiment helps no one. To make attacks on the Parachute Brigade as a means of saving a regiment is despicable. I earnestly hope that in the interests of the Army as a whole such remarks will stop.

Mr. Noble: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in all the talks that I have had with officers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders not one of them has taken this line.

Mr. Boyden: There was a television broadcast in which a person—I will not name the officer; he was not a serving officer—gave the impression that he did not care a damn as long as the axe did not fall on the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
My view of the situation is contained in the words of a leading Conservative newspaper. The heading is large:
Army making the best of amalgamations. Hard task for generals in effecting changes.
The article starts:
Contrary to general expectation, the amalgamations in the Army announced seem likely to be accepted if not with acclaim at least with resignation. This is striking proof of the Army's confidence in the Army Council.
Hon. Members opposite need not get alarmed. There has not been a split in the Tory Press. That quotation from the Daily Telegraph, which, two days before, had this heading:
Army cuts by pairing units, 15 line regiments and 20 artillery to go",
was on 27th July, 1957.
I hope I have made it clear that the Army Board and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence sympathise with the feelings of sadness and pain which the disappearance of these regiments cause. But a contraction in the size of the Army is an inevitable consequence of the Government's determination to have a defence policy which nationally we can afford. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may attack that, but they cannot attack the logical consequences which flow from it. We are not repeating the mistake made by


the Conservative Party, when in power, of taking on commitments which were beyond our economic resources. We have reshaped our defence commitments so that they accord with what we can afford.
This is a policy which is both prudent and reasonable, and it is ultimately in the interests of both the British Army and the nation as a whole. I ask the House to reject the Motion.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I am perhaps in a better position to answer some of the Minister's last remarks than some people because I was no longer a Service Minister at the time when the cuts to which he has just referred were made and I continued to criticise them for a good many years after they were made. But two wrongs do not make a right, and that is something that the Minister and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear in mind.
In the White Paper, the Secretary of State for Defence—I am sorry to see that he has gone already—recognises what he calls the "inherent fallibility" of his own judgment. That is a very telling phrase and a very true one. Considering the Government's record in defence, this admission comes, as The Times points out, not a moment too soon. This is the fourth Defence Statement that we have had in 18 months and it includes reversals of policy decisions that were taken as recently as last November. Indeed, I think that it even includes reversals of decisions made only a few weeks ago.
The Secretary of State went on in the White Paper to express the hope that the Services would now enjoy a period of stability. Well, if that is what he hopes, he is setting about it the wrong way. Let us leave aside for a moment what the Secretary of State is doing to the other Services. We are dealing today with the Army and specifically with the Scottish regiments, with the disband-ments which have already been announced and with the others which we fear may still be to come.
The Government are worried, or should be worried, by the appalling recruiting figures for the Army. The present strength is 172,000 men, excluding boy soldiers. Last year it dropped by the

unprecedented figure of 5,000 in one year. If this goes on, it will have reached a strength of only 115,000 by the mid-1970's instead of the 152,000 which I understand is aimed at and which, in all conscience, is aiming extremely low.
Personally, as Under-Secretary of State for War, I was always against the proposal in the circumstances then prevailing to abolish National Service. I first opposed it inside the Government and from 1957, with the change of Prime Minister and of Minister of Defence, I opposed it outside the Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want it back?

Sir F. Maclean: I think that the Government may well find themselves in a position where they either have to give up altogether or have it back. But that is all past history and no one would seriously expect a Labour Government, of their own free will, to reintroduce conscription after a Tory Government had abolished it. I think that even the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would agree with that.
Today, rightly or wrongly, we have a professional volunteer Army. Many people who know much more about these things than I do say that this is the ideal. But now that we have got it, the Government somehow have to get enough recruits for it and the right type of recruits. And if they are not to reintroduce conscription or, as I have said, just give up trying—they must go about the job in the right way. And I believe they are going about it the wrong way.
I can think of no more effective way to damage morale inside the Army or to discourage recruiting for it than to abolish a regiment like the Agyll and Sutherland Highlanders. The same applies to the 2nd Battalion the Scots Guards, another regiment with a magnificent record. This, I agree, is a rather different question because many line regiments have felt it wrong that the Guards regiments should have two battalions each when line regiments only had one each. However, one may ask why it is that, when the Government decided to abolish the 2nd battalion of a Guards regiment, they picked on the Scots Guards. That, again, looks rather like racial prejudice.
To return to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. They are a regiment with a tremendous historical tradition and a deeply rooted local and, to borrow Field Marshal Montgomery's famous phrase, tribal connection, and a tremendous righting record dating from the 18th century and earlier, through two world wars, Korea and Malaya right down to Aden only a few months ago. They also have a first-class recruiting record.
And here I think that the Undersecretary of State rather tried to have it both ways. I understood him to say that recruiting figures are not all that important.

Mr. Boyden: I did not say that recruiting figures for the Service as a whole are not all that important, but that individual regimental recruiting figures are not quite as important as they used to be.

Sir F. Maclean: If they are becoming less important it is possibly because of the way the Government treats the regiments. But then, on the other hand, the Ministry of Defence took the trouble to put out a statement saying that recruiting for the regiments of the Highland Brigade was notoriously bad.

Mr. Boyden: I did not say that they were notoriously bad.

Sir F. Maclean: No. But the hon. Gentleman's Department did. This is a difficult one to deal with and the Minister who replies will require all his skill. The Ministry put out a statement saying that recruiting figures for the Highland Brigade were bad, and when one considers what has been done to the Highland Brigade over the last six or seven years this, if true, is perhaps not surprising. But what the Ministry rather dishonestly failed to say was that, whatever the recruiting records of other Highland regiments, that of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was quite exceptionally good.
The Defence Secretary, who I really think might have waited a little longer in the debate, said on television the other day that 80 per cent. of recruits nowadays have no preference for a particular unit of the Army and that, if a local unit was abolished, people from that locality joined another. Now that may be true of English regiments, although I very

much doubt it. But it is quite certainly not true of Scottish regiments and, in particular, of Highland regiments.
The Secretary of State for Scotland served with great distinction in the Highland Light Infantry during the Second World War. He is present and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he ask the Secretary of State whether his regiment did not have a strong esprit de corps and everything that goes with it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I certainly confirm that the Highland Light Infantry had a strong esprit de corps and a very proud record. The Tory Government abolished it, just the same.

Sir F. Maclean: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman because they did exactly the same to my own regiment, the Cameron Highlanders, by amalgamating it.

Mr. Ross: And the Royal Scots Fusiliers.

Sir F. Maclean: Yes.

Mr. Ross: As well as the H.L.I.

Sir F. Maclean: I can see that the right hon. Gentleman shares my feelings on the subject.
The difference between Scottish and particularly Highland regiments and English regiments was, I think, well put about 150 years ago by General Stewart of Garth. He wrote this:
With a Highland soldier it is otherwise … He is surrounded by the companions of his youth and the rivals of his early achievements: he feels impulse of emulation strengthened by consciousness that every proof he displays, either of bravery or cowardice, will find its way to his native home … Hence he requires no artificial excitements. He acts from motives within himself; his point is fixed and his aim must terminate either in victory or death.
I was interested, therefore, to read in a newspaper a day or two ago what had been said on the same subject by Colonel David Boyle, a former commanding officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders:
Every sngle Jock knows that if he does badly the woman next door at home will know that he has done badly.
That comes to much the same thing.
The Scottish regiments are more than just regiments. Many men will join one


or other of the Scottish regiments, but will not join any other regiment in the British Army. That is something which one cannot translate into statistics but which, in the long run, shows up clearly in the recruiting figures.
During the bleak years which followed the Rising of 1745 the Scottish regiments were the chief means of preserving intact the tenuous thread of Scotland's existence as a nation. And here I should like to pause for a moment to mop up the crocodile tears shed elsewhere by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) who, as usual, is not in her place. She is reported as saying how awful it is that the Scottish regiments should be abolished, but we here all know perfectly well that her party is committed to doing away with the whole lot of them.
To this day the Scottish regiments have remained an essential part of Scottish national life, and in many senses, both at home and, perhaps even more abroad, a living symbol of Scotland. To my own father, for instance, who, as a regular soldier, spent most of his life abroad, his regiment, the Cameron Highlanders, was for many years his closest link with Scotland. When, in due course, I myself came temporarily to leave civilian life, it was to the same regiment, with which I had spent the early years of my childhood, that I naturally returned, and when I did it was like coming home. That is an experience which I share with innumerable other Scots.
That is why when this or any other Government—and, right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not the only culprits—destroy a regiment like the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, or the Cameronians, the Scottish Rifles, they are doing much more than wiping out one infantry battalian. That, after all, is something which the Germans have done before now, but they have come back to life. What they are doing in the name of pretended efficiency is destroying two or three hundred years of history, tradition and comradeship. They are destroying something which extends far beyond the regiment itself.
If the Secretary of State has any doubt about this, let him go to Argyllshire and the regiment's other recruiting areas and see for himself, as I did this weekend, what the feeling is there and throughout

Scotland. It is for this reason that when a Government destroy a regiment like the Argylls they do so much harm to recruiting and morale. A corps of infantry may be a very tidy concept on paper. But the regimental spirit is what pulls in the recruits and, in the ultimate analysis, what wins battles. And I am very glad to have the support in this of as disin-guished a soldier as Field Marshal Templer, a former C.I.G.S., who, I was glad to see, made this point very clearly a month or two ago.
I know that the Government are under all kinds of pressure, from the "gnomes of Zurich", their own Left wing and from my right hon. Friends, and I sincerely hope that before long this pressure will be too much for them and that they will give up and go to the country and leave a Tory Government to implement the pledges which I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) to give. For I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not allow any Government of which he was a Member to carry on with the dis-bandment of the Argylls.
On the other hand, if the present Prime Minister somehow manages to run his course, I hope that his Government will at least pay heed to some of the things which I and other far better qualified and far more distinguished than I have said and are saying on this subject every day. The Government have managed to find the money for 60,000 extra civil servants in three years. If they can afford to squander such vast sums on thick red tape, surely they can spare a modicum for the "Thin Red Line".

4.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: What are we debating this afternoon? Are we debating the reorganisation of Her Majesty's Forces, or the simple and single issue of whether the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders should be disbanded? If we are considering the latter, I suggest that we might have waited until a more appropriate time to debate the reorganisation of Her Majesty's Forces. I therefore agree with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) that in this respect the debate is premature.
Because of the contemplated withdrawal of forces from east of Suez and


the apparent decision to supplement our forces in Europe, sooner or later the Government will be compelled to ask the House to debate the whole subject of military reorganisation and the kind of defence which the United Kingdom requires. But this is not the occasion. A simple Motion is before the House and it is opposed by the Opposition.
The time will come, perhaps very soon, when we have to debate the reorganisation of our defence, but at this moment why allow this unnecessary debate to take place? In the midst of discussion among the General Staff and in the context of the kind of defence which the United Kingdom will require in future, why should this question of the disbanding of a regiment intervene?
It is not a matter of whether a regiment is more capable than another of recruitment. It is rather a question of local tradition, or, if the House requires a more appropriate term, a tribal military consideration. For that reason I see no reason why, in the midst of a discussion about the future of our defence, we should decide to disband this regiment. There was also a suggestion in the recent White Paper about disbanding the Gloucestershire Regiment. I recall when I was Minister of Defence, and we were engaged in the war in Korea, what happened to the Gloucestershire Regiment. The idea of disbanding the Gloucesters, with their fame and gallantry and in view of what happened in Korea, is repugnant to me.
I could understand this, if the Government had decided to reorganise our defence and disband all the regiments, the Argylls, the Gloucesters, the Hampshires —I was about to add the Durham Light Infantry, but that step has, I understand, already been taken, despite innumerable protests which I have received from the North of England. I could understand that, if we were to recruit men just as soldiers for Regiment No. 1 and Regiment No. 2, or Brigade No. 1 and Brigade No. 2. Perhaps that is the most desirable organisation of our defence. But we are still retaining traditional names associated with famous regiments.
Then why single out this regiment? I cannot understand it. Something has gone wrong with the Defence Depart-

ment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let us be careful about this. I do not mean the civilian personnel of the Department; something has gone wrong with the people inside, but not for the first time. Anyone who has been a Minister of Defence—there are several ex-Ministers around the place; we have had so many of them since the last war, far too many, I think, and far too many defence debates and reorganisations—can recall how often we were presented with Estimates only to have them amended in a few weeks or months. I am not blaming my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is the people behind them who do not know where they are, because they cannot envisage the kind of defence which this country will require in future.
This has been argued in innumerable Defence White Papers. Is it to be nuclear war, war on the ground, in the air or at sea? They cannot make up their minds and nor can anyone in the House. We do not know. But, in the midst of all this indescribable confusion, misunderstanding, conjecture and speculation, this trumpery intervention to disband a particular regiment is not my conception of how to organise defence. There are so many experts around, but I am probably as good an expert as any, because I know just about as much as they do; and that is not saying very much anyway.
Some gentlemen associated with our defence organisation are so cocksure of everything. It might be more important if they were actually cocksure of the direction in which we were going, but they cannot be. Therefore, the time has not yet come to decide about disbanding particular regiments. That should be considered in the context of our future military organisation. We can discuss it in the defence debate next February. Why decide now?

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. W. G. Reynolds): I am finding it difficult to follow my right hon. Friend's argument. We are discussing an Opposition Motion condemning the Government for closing down one of 14 battalions. This debate has not been initiated by the Government at all.

Mr. Shinwell: I have been long enough in the House to understand procedure— or I should have been, after 46 years or


so. I am aware that this is a Supply day and that the Opposition have taken advantage to direct attention to an aspect of the defence situation. They have concentrated on the proposal to disband a particular regiment. Does anyone query what I have said? I am ready to sit down if anyone does.

Mr. Boyden: I query it to the extent that it involves at least one other Scottish regiment, the future of the Scots Greys, and the remaining English, Welsh and Irish regiments. By implication, it certainly involves 14 regiments.

Mr. Shinwell: But that is precisely the Government's fault. That is what they have proposed. The Government need not have produced this White Paper at this stage. How many defence interventions do we normally have in a year? Usually, it is one. Every now and again, there is another intervention, another attempt to reconsider and reorganise our defences, and that is a mistake. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that the time has not yet come to consider the future of all our defence organisations. We should have waited.
I am, as a result, in some difficulty— and not for the first time. I am told that I must vote against the Opposition Motion. That is what I am told. I am going to do nothing of the sort. It is as simple as that. I am speaking quite honestly. That is how I feel. When I heard about this, I said that it was nonsense.
There is a political aspect to this, and I wonder whether I dare mention it. This is an emotional subject in Scotland and it is no use quarrelling with an emotion. One can quarrel with Scottish logic and get away with it, but not with Scottish emotion. I should have thought that, with all the political possibilities which appear likely ahead of this party and of our party in Scotland, we should be mighty careful about ventures of this sort. [Laughter.]
There seems to be laughter on my Front Bench. I am not laughing about the possibilities. I know Scotland better than most of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have had a longer connection with Scotland than any of them—even the Secretary of State. I spoke in his constituency nearly

60 years ago—before he was born. I am not saying that my appearance in Kil-marnock led to his birth—it had nothing to do with it.
Therefore, I understand Scotland and its emotions and what its people feel about nationalism. I think it is a lot of poppycock. I would give them, instead, some autonomy, but no more than that —but that is another subject. Now, the Government add to the trouble by disbanding the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Where do most of the recruits come from? From Glasgow—

Mr. Ross: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: The Secretary of State agrees with me. Of course they are not Highlanders. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) need not deceive himself. He thinks that they come from South Uist and Lewis and the Hebrides and Stornoway: they do nothing of the sort. Most of the Highlanders join the Glasgow police. Most of the Argylls come from Glasgow. I know something about this, because members of my family joined Scottish regiments a long time ago and took part in the First World War. I do not suggest there is anything wrong with the Argylls because most of them come from Glasgow, in view of what is happening there at present. It is better to have soldiers who are a bit ruthless and tough.
Mention was made about how men are recruited for various regiments. Take the English regiments. Where did most of the recruits come from in the past? They came from Ireland. England got most of her soldiers and generals from Ireland. I am giving the Government information on matters of which they should be aware.
I am sorry if I appear to have been getting worked up about this matter. I want to protect the Government by suggesting that they should not do something which is unnecessary. It is a stupid intervention at this time. Let us wait until we discuss the whole subject of the defence of the United Kingdom and I will then have something to say. In the meantime, this brief intervention indicates that I am in some political difficulty. As I ventured to say on a previous occasion when we had a very important debate, I will not vote with the Tories. I never


did a thing like that before and I will not start now at my time of life. I cannot vote with the Government, so I will just stay away.

Mr. Boyden: I know that my right hon. Friend is a very good friend of the soldier. This was his reputation in the War Office. But does my right hon. Friend not think that the soldiers affected by defence cuts ought to have a reasonably clear idea where their future lies, and so on?

Mr. Shinwell: If I am asked that question, of course, nobody has a higher respect for the men in the forces than I because of what has happened in the past. I know there are some who do not care much about defence, but I have always believed that some defence is necessary. We have to provide the people with a feeling of security. Even if it does not exist, we have to associate the idea of security with a defence organisation. I have a high respect for the men in the forces, but, if we are to have defence cuts, and cuts may be necessary in future, I want to see the whole panorama of our military future presented before me before I can come to a decision. The time has not yet arrived, and that is the purpose of my remarks. Incidentally, I had not the slightest intention of speaking. I merely wanted to say that I will not vote either way. But, in view of what has been said, I have offered a few observations, of which I hope the Government will take note.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I have been dreading this debate for many months. I think many hon. Members have felt that this was coming. Now that it has come, I am glad that we have the opportunity today to put to the Minister and the Government what I believe is a first-class factual down-to-earth reason why this is a very bad decision.
I was grateful to the Minister for the way he spoke this afternoon, but I put it to him that he has not begun to appreciate why this decision has caused such terrible dismay throughout Scotland. If the Minister and everyone else in Whitehall will listen carefully for a moment why this is so, I believe they will be doing themselves a good turn and they

will certainly be doing the Army a good turn.
I fully appreciate and support what has been said about the long traditions of these regiments, their exploits in the past, and the fact that on many occasions they have tipped the scales when this country has had its back to the wall. I will leave that part of the argument out of the reckoning in what I have to say. Although it is important, it is not the main point I want to put to the Government. I believe that it is most important for the Government to realise that the solid practical reason for not abolishing regiments such as this is something of which the Army ought to be well aware.
There are two main criteria which the Army of the present and of the future, will need. First it will need regiments of front line troops of one sort or another which have the morale, the skill, the efficiency and the capacity to stand up to any task they are given at short notice, and often in very difficult conditions. The second requirement is that our Army of the future must have sufficiently good morale and support from the civilian population to get sufficient recruits without the necessity of conscription.
Those are two aims which I am sure no one on either side will dispute. I believe that the abolition of the most successful of the Scottish regiments at the moment is directly contrary to both these aims and I will explain why.
I will take the second of these aims first namely, the need to recruit. Mention has already been made that the Government are seriously worried about the present recruiting situation, and well they might be. The shortfall in the recruiting required by the Government is of the order of 25 per cent. less than they know they need to keep the strength of the Army for what they are planning. That leaves out of account the argument that I would put at another time that the proposed scale of the Army will in any case be too small for what the Government will need to do with it. However, that is for another debate. I believe that the shortfall in recruiting is serious and will result in the Government not being able to keep the Army at the size they want in the years to come.
Let us look at the picture of recruiting as it affects the Scottish regiments. The


Scottish regiments have consistently been among the better recruited divisions of the Army—I am not saying the best, but they have on occasions been the best— because they have a close link with the people of Scotland. When their recruiting is compared with that of the Army as a whole, I would point out that it has been something of a speciality for the Scots to provide infantry. Traditionally, the infantry has created the greatest connection with the Scottish people. That is why we have a relatively high proportion or regiments with famous names. I do not accept that it would be reasonable for the Scottish infantry regiments to be cut down to a figure of 8 or 10 per cent. of the whole Army. This is purely unrealistic, because the Scottish contribution to the infantry has always been relatively higher than the Scottish contribution of population to Britain as a whole. Therefore, I suggest that this is not a reasonable proposition to advance.
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are currently providing at least a third of the recruits for the Scottish Division as a whole and about half the recruits for the four present Highland regiments. If we abolish them, we threaten about half the recruiting in Highland regiments and about a third in Scottish regiments as a whole.
What conceivable sense is there in that at a time when full-page advertisements are being taken in the newspapers with all kinds of glossy pictures and wonderful wordings by the advertising men to get recruits into the Army? What do the Government do? They select for dis-bandment the one regiment which is getting the lion's share of the recruits at the moment. It is an absolutely incomprehensible decision. This is what has been found so difficult to put across to the people of Scotland as a whole.
We had a statement the other day by the Secretary of State for Defence that 80 per cent. of recruits to the Army did not mention any regiment. I will not dispute that figure. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know, as he is in charge of the Department. But has he not realised that to quote a. figure for the Army as a whole for the country as a whole and then slavishly apply it to the individual case of Scottish regiments is to make a mistake that is made time and time again, year in and year out, of taking a national

average and automatically assuming that it affects Scotland just the same as anywhere else. Nothing causes more resentment than that somebody sitting in an office in Whitehall assumes that everything is a pattern. It is not a pattern.
I can tell the Minister from my experience and that of people to whom I have spoken that the vast majority—I put it no higher—of people who join the Highland regiments request to join a particular regiment. A figure of 90 per cent. was quoted by General Graham, who should know. He sees personally every recruit to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Ninety per cent. of them state that they come from the regimental area and want to join the regiment, and 60 per cent., or nearly two-thirds of them, come because they have a close friend or relative in the regiment who has told them that it is a good thing to be in. Those are the facts from people who deal with these matters. I beg the Government to think again, to look behind the figures and to see these patterns which occur behind the figures.
Before I leave the question of recruiting, I should like to ask whether the Government have ever done what is often done in industry—that is, some form of motivational research, scientifically conducted, to find out what makes people join the infantry. I ask the Government to reflect on the sort of job that an infantryman has to do. In many cases the infantryman does not have the carrot of learning a trade—becoming, for example, a vehicle mechanic—as in the technical trades or becoming a scientist and acquiring a skill which may last him in later life when he leaves the Army. The infantryman is the maid-of-all-work of the Army and his skill is his morale and his ability to stand together in impossible situations.
That is why I come on to the excellent remarks of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) when he touched on the question of regiments and the regimental system. This is not a game of playing soldiers. The reason for the regimental system is that it works. It enables people to withstand situations that are impossible for human flesh and blood to stand. The fact that the men know that they have to live the rest of their military careers with the same people, and have to go back to their


home areas where everyone will know what their conduct has been, is the sort of factor which enables them to withstand more than reason could expect them to do.
That is one of the reasons why the British Army is the envy of other armies all over the world. It is not an accident. We are not a military nation. Most of us in this nation do not like militarism. We hate wars and we would gladly do without them. The reason why the British Army, in a non-military nation, has been so outstandingly successful in this respect is because we have the regimental system, which binds men together in situations of danger. If any proof of that is needed, let the Minister reflect that almost every other army would give an awful lot to have a system like our regimental system. Very few people would deny that.
I should like to say a brief word on the second of the main necessities which our modern Army will need—that is, units of the highest efficiency and skill. This is no longer a question of square-bashing, of marching and countermarching on squares. The task of the modern infantry soldier is an infinitely skilled one.
There is no possibility of getting together 600 men and three weeks or three months later having a first-class battalion. A first class battalion takes years to build up. It requires mutual confidence between officers and other ranks, between non-commissioned officers and other ranks and between the whole personnel of a unit. One cannot build up a unit without years of hard work.
The Argylls, partly through circumstance and partly through the first-class quality of the men and their officers, have over many years built up the standard of efficiency of the battalions to something that is quite outstanding in the British Army. I do not make the claim that they are the best battalion in the British Army, although there are many who would. I do claim that they are one of the most outstandingly well-trained units that the Government have in the Army. That is one of the main reasons why the people of Scotland are absolutely unable to understand why this regiment has been chosen at this time to be abolished. I beg the Government to

realise that they are up against an impossible task of explanation if they are trying to persuade the people of Scotland that it can be right for the best and most famous regiment to be abolished in this way.
I should like to make a final point. This is where I move away from the interests of the Army to ask the Government to consider public opinion in Scotland. I believe that the country as a whole—this will probably not be in dispute between the two sides of the House —has had a very difficult time in the last few years. A lot of things have gone wrong—and I am not here apportioning blame. We have had troubles in our economy and with our exports and things have gone wrong left, right and centre.
When one looks back, surely one of the things which shines out in the minds of ordinary people as having been successful and having been well done has been the conduct of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, particularly in Aden. People were able to open their newspapers and say, "Well, somebody is doing a good job. Something is successful. We cannot be entirely unsuccessful in everything all the time." When there is that sort of feeling people are glad suddenly to find something to cheer them.
Within a few months, however, the Government select the very people who, through years of work, courage, industry and everything else, were responsible for producing that one glimmer of sunshine in years of hard graft. That is the regiment that the Government have decided to disband and abolish. Can they be surprised that the people of Scotland are raging mad about it?

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I can understand the sentiments, emotions and feelings of hon. and gallant Members who are taking part in the debate, but when they say that they speak for the great majority of the people of Scotland they are labouring under a delusion. I know that there is a Press campaign about this matter in which every kind of national, sentimental and patriotic emotion has been exploited for political and party purposes, but I do not think that there is any great amount of criticism of the Government by ordinary people


because a number of ex-officers have worked themselves up to this mood of prefabricated indignation.
We have had all this before. I remember 1957. In 1957 we had cuts by a Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has recalled that there have been many different former Defence Ministers. One of them came in to the debate for a short time and drifted out. That was the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I remember the drastic cuts that were imposed in what was called the Sandys White Paper of 1957.
At that time the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, made a television broadcast in which he committed himself and his party to a drastic reduction in defence expenditure irrespective of tradition and vested interests. I believe that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) protested at the time. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), I believe in 1957, was a Scottish Whip and he will recall that there was no outbreak of indignation then among Conservative Members of Parliament, except for a few old soldiers like Brigadier Prior-Palmer and soldiers of the First and Second World Wars.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: If I may correct the hon. Member, my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) was not then, in 1957, in Parliament, so he could not have been a Whip.

Mr. Hughes: I do not remember exactly whether he arrived here in 1957, but I do not remember any kind of protest from the right hon. Member for Argyll when many Scottish regiments were disbanded as a result of the defence policy of the Macmillan Government.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Again the hon. Member is quite wrong. Those were not disbandments; they were amalgamations.

Mr. Hughes: They were put out of action, anyway.
This time what the Conservatives are saying is, to me, sheer political hypocrisy. I remember when Winston Churchill decided to come out of the Suez base. We had the Suez Group attacking

that policy of the Tory Government when the then Government realised they had to reduce expenditure, during a time of financial crisis; and they were assailed by the Suez Group, and Winston Churchill said we had to be realistic and we could not stay in Suez without staying in Egypt. This controversy about the regiments did not start when the present Government came in.
I have been corrected about the right hon. Member for Argyll, but he has come in for criticism in the Scottish Press. I have here a letter from a correspondent in The Scotsman who recalls that when the right hon. Member for Argyll was asked for his comment on the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders' disbandment he said that when he first saw the news of that his comment was unprintable. Well, he was not unprintable today. At least, he was audible. But a lady writing in reply made the point, "Was he so indignant when the other Scottish regiments were disbanded?".
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has mentioned them. What about the Ayrshire regiment? We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and one would think that Ayr was seething with indignation about the disbanding of the Argyll and Sutherland Regiment. Pure nonsense. Absolute, sentimental poppycock. What is the position in Ayr? I am very glad to say that recruiting figures in Ayrshire are going down. In Ayr they have had to do away with the Churchill Barracks. That sacred cow has been executed. There is no Churchill Barracks in Ayr. Why? Because they cannot get the recruits. The Government have faced this position: if there are no recruits then the sensible thing is to disband the regiment.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Scots Greys are the best recruited regiment in the Army and recruited mainly in Ayrshire?

Mr. Hughes: They did not live in Churchill Barracks in Ayr, anyway.

Mr. Ross: There is no Churchill Barracks. It is a fairground.

Mr. Hughes: Well, I think that is an improvement. I would rather see a fairground there than the Churchill Barracks, which was an absolute eyesore. If


there were this enthusiasm for the Scottish regiments, and the sentimental glamour of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, then if the recruiting figures were going up, that would be a sign of there being something behind it; but the recruiting figures are not going up; they are going down.
I made one interjection about unemployment. I know there is this controversy; there has been some controversy in recent years that when the unemployment figures go up, recruiting goes up, too, and I understand that this has been challenged by some Departmental Committee, but I know why so many people joined the Argyll and Sutherland Regiment in the past, and the reason was poverty. Not of the officers, but the great Highland counties were poor counties, counties where ordinary people had nothing else to do but go into the Army. It was not because they were hot-beds of patriotism at all. It was simply because they had to go in the Army or starve. When we hear about the glorious history of Scotland it is as well to recall these facts.
I believe this problem is with us. I believe that when economic prosperity returns to the Highlands—and I am sure there are signs of its beginning, as a result of this Government's redevelopment policy—it will be more and more difficult for the Army to get its recruits, simply because the people there will get jobs, they will get better wages, they will be able to live with their families, and they would prefer to be in some kind of settled occupation at a reasonable wage to being in the Army.

Mr. Brewis: Can the hon. Gentleman explain then why the young men in Ayrshire are joining the Ayrshire Yeomanry and paying their own money to go to Territorial camp?

Mr. Hughes: It is quite true that Opposition leaders made a big fuss about the disbanding of the Ayrshire Yeomanry, but I receive letters, too. I received two letters, one from an officer whose name was so undecipherable I could not understand it, and the other from a colonel who did not know that I represent South Ayrshire and who lives in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr. I thought one of the letters

came from an illiterate, because I could not understand his writing. The other came from somebody who did not understand anything at all, except that this small clique of Yeomanry officers were not going to have social opportunities which they had had in the past. There is no outbreak at all of any real indignation because the Ayrshire Yeomanry were disbanded.
What I say is that if these gentlemen want to carry on, paying their own expenses, I have no objection to their operating in a voluntary capacity, and the hon. Member has just given another illustration of this completely bogus agitation, which is not based on the feelings of ordinary people at all.

Mr. Younger: I do not want to break the hon. Member's heart, but perhaps he is not aware that the Ayrshire Yeomanry have not been disbanded and have no intention of being disbanded and are very much alive and kicking.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise if I used the word "disbanded", but they are not going to operate with Government finance, and if they are carrying on their avocation without asking us for any money, I have no more objection to that than I have to the Boy Scouts or the Boys' Brigade.
We are living in an age when people are asking, what are we going into the Army for? Whom are we going to fight? Is Scotland in any danger of being invaded? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) speaking on Moscow radio, when he said that we must not only co-exist with the Russians but co-operate with them Yet the assumption in all these debates is that we must have a big Army, or a big reserve Army, because at some time or other we have to fight the Russians. I do not believe that that is a sensible argument, or that, in any case, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are relevant to it. People ask, "In these days, what is the Army for?" We get no satisfactory answer, but the answer will be the dilemma and the problem of Ministers of Defence.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington brought a touch of realism into this debate. He pointed out that these romantic regiments were recruited


from what are called the Glasgow "keelies." He said that they were tough people. I am told that they made the best fighting soldiers but that unfortunately some of them had not forgotten their old habits.
I would prefer to see potential recruits to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and to the Highlands and Lowlands regiments going to the police. That is where they are needed at the present time. The trouble in Glasgow at present is not that the security of its citizens is menaced by the Russians. The Russians do not go out at night smashing people on the head, collecting in gangs and using razors. It is the civil population. I am therefore delighted when I find that fewer people are going into the old regiments, because some of them may drift into the police force and so help to tackle crime in Glasgow.
I am not making a romantic speech, and my sentiments will probably not be endorsed by any hon. Member opposite—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Has the hon. Gentleman received any messages of support from Czechoslovakia for the argument he now puts forward?

Mr. Hughes: I am reminded that this is on'y a three-hour debate—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—

Mr. Hughes:: Leave it alone—I am coming to my peroration.
The right hon. Member for Easington pointed out that some of the greatest soldiers have been Irish. That is true. It was the Duke of Wellington who said, "Sir, the military profession is a damnable profession." I believe there to be a general realisation that there is no great future for the old kind of Army, and I am glad to see that the Government are doing something sensible and are facing the fact that the Army's numbers will be reduced. I hope that the time will come when the numbers in the Army will be smaller than the numbers in the police force.

5.44 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I think that hon. Members opposite are in some confusion about the state of our defences, but there has been

no shining light of clarity in their contribution.
It is inevitable that this debate should range far more widely than over the one part of the Defence White Paper upon which I intend to speak. I do not think that it really matters where the recruits come from. Of course, recruits to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders come from Argyll, they also come from Renfrew and Stirling, from Clackmannan and Kinross, and from among the Glasgow "keelies", of whom I am one, as are the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and many hon. Members. We are now studying the effect on a nation to which we are all proud to belong of disbanding a great regiment. I extend my remarks to point out that the widespread dismay is occasioned by the fact that the White Paper makes plain to all thinking people that the Government have once again struck at the defences of the country, and are again illustrating that our defences are now falling below the strength that many people regard as necessary for the safety of this island today.
It is true that we have a professional Army. Anyone who, like myself, was fortunate enough recently to go on a delegation to the B.A.O.R. recognises that we have a highly trained, highly skilled, professional and well-equipped Army, but, for those qualities that are necessary to make the Army what it is, the men and the units are still dependent on the basic requirements of morale, discipline and recruiting. Who in this Chamber would dare analyse what morale really is? Who is prepared to describe precisely what it is that creates the conditions in men and in units which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has mentioned? If an army or a unit is to achieve the badge of distinction in its rôle, it is for all of us to accept that the two qualities I have mentioned, plus recruiting, are necessary.
The first quality required is morale, so I see in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders the indefinable quality that is required above all else in any fighting unit. There is also the follow-on of the discipline of the men and of the unit, and the relationship between the various ranks and those who have formerly served in the unit, which builds up this indescribable force.
There are other things. There is the discipline, and within the discipline I count a career structure. I do not think that a man can have confidence in his career and be expected to be a professional highly-trained soldier—or any other Service man—unless he is reasonably sure of the security of his employment. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I agree on no other point, perhaps we can agree that security of employment is today as essential to a soldier as to any other person in the community.
The Minister has told us that jobs are being found for those who were affected when the Cameronians disbanded, but does he not realise that some of those jobs were in the ranks of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders? How does he think these men feel today. What prospect does he suggest is being offered to men who have joined a regiment with which they had no ties only to find that unit disbanded two months later? What is the prospect of those men for the next 10 years? It is not at all surprising that the recruiting figures are affected. We cannot conceivably imagine any men wittingly taking on a job whose future they doubt in view of the experience of their friends in having to change their jobs twice in two months. That is not on for recruiting.
If, as I and countless other Scots believe, there are within the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders those qualities necessary for the best in the British Army, has serious consideration been given to the retention of their identity in another form, such as a parachute regiment? It has been said in another place, by someone who knows much more about these things than I do, that this should be a practical solution. I should like to see it looked into, even at this stage, as a practical possibility. Goodness knows, in Scotland we produced from the Highland Light Infantry in time of war as good a parachute battalion as there is in the British Army and very proud they were of their tartan trews. I cannot see why this solution should not be applied to this proposed disbandment.
Mention has been made of recruiting and the apparently new idea that recruiting is not so closely tied to employment as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire

thinks. So far as I have been able to discover, over two centuries at least the proportion of the population in Scotland who have sought to join the Regular Army has been just about constant. Therefore, I think it quite right to accept the view that the proportion of the population who wish to serve in the Regular Forces in Scotland is a constant figure, considerably higher than the proportion from any other part of the United Kingdom.
I understand that today the Royal Scots Greys consist 93 per cent. of Scots. In the event of disbandment, as it is the only Scots cavalry regiment, the men would have to go to English, Welsh or Irish units. We may have views about where Scotland stands, but most of us want Scots people to have a Scots regiment to join. I hope that the English Ministers appreciate the strength of feeling there is in that respect. This is a decision affecting not only the Argylls but one weakening yet again the defences of this country and destroying that part of the very spirit on which we depend when ill times befall us.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Aware that what I am going to say will cause anger, some bitter resentment and some rather brutal hurt, I regret, to cherished personal feelings, I should like the House to be clear about what is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Scots Greys have given remarkable service to this country in two world wars. It is not in dispute that in a number of exceedingly unpleasant campaigns, such as the Greys had in Palestine in the late 1930s and the Argylls in many campaigns, such as the Indian Mutiny and the Siege of Lucknow, there have been many feats of considerable personal heroism displayed by individuals in those regiments.
The four issues I raise arise out of the serious speeches by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), whom I listen to with great respect in these matters, and from what he has been saying in the Press and in his speech this afternoon. Any contempt I have is reserved for representatives of the Scottish Nationalist Party. Dr. McIntyre,


Provost of Stirling, says "Keep the Argylls" but other Scottish Nationalists want most defence costs to be abolished. This is a wholly contemptible attitude of having one's cake and eating it, for which I have no time.
The issues I raise, following the debate, and in particular, the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr, are, first, whether there is a credible operational requirement; secondly, whether the effect on recruiting will be adverse and if so to what extent this matters; thirdly, the whole question of cost; and fourthly, the question whether the cuts are unfair to Scotland. On the question of a credible operational requirement, of course if we take the view of Sir Gordon Macmillan that there has been a mistaken defence policy and that we should remain in Singapore, it probably follows from that basic assumption that we should keep the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I do not find it adequate for the hon. Member for Ayr to say that of course there may be tasks to be performed at short notice. We must be very open about this. I trust that this or any future British Government will not take those kind of "tasks at short notice" outside N.A.T.O. and the United Nations.
It is up to the Opposition to be a little clearer about their attitude. I have not got the script, but I listened to what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said on Thursday night on the radio about these defence cuts. I may have got him wrong, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to make it pretty clear that he was not going to endorse any kind of a pledge that, should a Conservative Government be elected, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders or any other particular regiment would be restored. He is a canny politician and also an ex-Chancellor. Having seen him in the House this afternoon—not personally, but having seen him present—I find it a little strange that the right hon. Gentleman has not appeared at any time during this debate. My guess would be that, foreseeing man as he is in many ways, he will not want to be seen to commit himself to this kind of Motion.
Basically, I accept the assumptions of the Defence White Papers. I should have thought that if the Scots Greys have a contribution, either as an

armoured regiment or an armoured engineering regiment, to make to N.A.T.O., they should be kept. Otherwise they should not be kept. The same goes for the United Nations balanced force. I hope that any contribution we make to a United Nations force will be no greater than a proportional contribution. Therefore, in this balanced force I do not think we can argue that there should be other than a decrease of infantry.
Then we come to the question of Aden. This is not the occasion on which one should talk of the politics of Aden, but I simply ask how this looks in retrospect. Was any great historic purpose served by those who laid down their lives in Aden? I went with Lloyd's Underwriters to Cairo to try and get the release the ships lodged in the Bitter Lakes. If one talks in the Arab world one find that our activities in Aden are mostly counter-productive. This is the view, not only of politicians of the Left, but of a great many British businessmen.
I had not intended to raise the question of Colonel Mitchell, but it was raised by the hon. Member for Argyll, and by the hon. Member for Ayr who made a central point about Colonel Mitchell and asked how we could do such a thing to his regiment. Colonel Mitchell was reported in the Daily Express to have said that one of the first Britons to land in Aden in 1827 started off by hanging the Mayor of Crater from the mast of his ship, and the colonel said:
This is the right standard discipline in this sort of situation. I had to be tough. I think they were very glad to see me go.
I simply remark that I do not want to be represented abroad in the Arab world by this kind of man. I think many young British people would feel the same way. I do not doubt that Colonel Mitchell is personally a brave man and I am not even saying, as many of my colleagues have said, perhaps rightly, that he is a publicity seeker. It may well have been that he used the title "Mad Mitch" in order to project a certain cause in which he believed. In any case, if we are to be critical of serving soldiers who air their opinions, let us not go for colonels. Let us go for generals and ask some rather detailed questions of General Sir John Hackett.


If we are to criticise that kind of thing, let us go for the generals rather than for the colonels.
I am provoked by the hon. Member for Ayr to ask what, in fact, did happen in Aden. After brief reflection, I propose to use the privilege which is given to Members to say things in the House of Commons and to ask questions in the House of Commons which they might not do outside for fear of being brought to the courts. I should like to ask some pretty loaded questions, as the subject has been raised.
I ask my hon. Friend, is it or is it not true that Colonel Mitchell disobeyed administrative and operational orders in Aden given by his Brigade Commander, Brigadier Jeffries, and the Army Commander, Major-General Tower? Secondly, if Colonel Mitchell disobeyed orders, what was the reaction of the Commander-in-Chief? Did the Commander-in-Chief raise this matter with the Secretary of State for Defence? If Colonel Mitchell disobeyed orders, why was he not relieved of his command? For example, is it or is it not true that during the Aden operation an order was given that grenades were to be kept at regimental headquarters, and is it or is it not true that when an inspection was made by senior officers, grenades were found to be distributed among the platoons of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders? If that is true, why did it happen?
In the House of Commons it would be quite proper to give a categorical denial, if such is the case. I am asking the questions for the wider purpose since a claim has been made about their superiority to other units. What exactly happened in the progress into Crater? That was a tricky political operation. Is it true that the Colonel of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders disobeyed the time schedule of his orders? I had better be very blunt about it. Is it not true that the Argylls in Aden, far from being the superbly disciplined force which they were claimed to be by the British Press, in fact suffered from a lack of discipline? Is not that the actual truth of what happened?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Younger: Leaving that scandalous allegation aside, would the hon. Member,

in the interest of fairness, record that once the Argylls had taken control in Crater there was a period of several months in which there was practically no incident, due to the fact that they had taken control, thus saving a great many lives?

Mr. Dalyell: That may be so, but it would be much better in Britain if we were to ask questions for the truth and if the truth were to come out. There is one point on which the hon. Member and I could agree, and that is that rumour is extremely damaging. All I can promise the hon. Member is that I did not ask these questions lightly. But the whole issue of Colonel Mitchell has been raised so widely, and in this debate, and with me personally, that I think it legitimate to ask these questions.
Another question to ask is, are the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and their like, the infantry, essential to the defence of these Islands? I am not a pacifist. I am a fortress Britain man. I understand that there must be some Regular Forces. At the risk of incurring the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, I remind him that in Tribune and other Left-wing journals I have advocated the British retention of Polaris, because it strikes me that when we are defending Britain, it is the Polaris nuclear capability which acts as a deterrent and no longer is it the famous infantry regiment, though some must be retained.
That brings me to the question of recruitment. I would say to the hon. Member for Ayr that if, as a young man, I were attending an interview with General Graham, I have a suspicion that I might say to him what I thought he wanted to hear. I do not take that evidence about a huge percentage wanting to join a particular "tribe" which he gave quite as seriously as he takes it. I feel that regimental identity is not a major factor compared with, for example, career structure. There is the evidence that the recruiting figures for the Royal Corps of Transport, which has never had any kind of regimental set-up, are extremely good. What matter for recruitment are the kind of bold schemes which my hon. Friend introduced in relation to linking serving officers, and I hope n.c.o.s, with industry when they


come out of the Forces. The announcement of 9th July about a link between industry and serving soldiers is extremely good. That will matter to recruitment. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that it was important to get the right type of recruit. So it is. And the right type of recruit is a much more highly educated person than ever before in our history. I suspect that this kind of man, whom it is highly desirable that the Army should recruit, will not be attracted by what is loosely called the tribalism of the regiment about which we have heard this afternoon.
I do not want to go into detail, but the issue for recruitment is the rôle and the use to which the Forces are put. Without wanting to be immodest in any way, and simply to safeguard myself against charges of shirking the issue and not going into it, I refer to a Fabian pamphlet which I wrote with Andrew Wilson, Lady Kennet, Neville Brown, the defence correspondents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), which outlines how modern forces should be geared to civilian tasks when they are not being used for military purposes. That raises the whole question, very properly initiated by the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), when she spoke about a worth-while career in the Forces. That is very important. It is the problem which we must face, and the Government are facing it.
I turn to the question of cost and the rise in cost in the last five years. If Sir Gordon Macmillan was here, I would address him in another capacity, namely, in his capacity as former Chairman of the Cumbernauld Development Corporation, because as Chairman of that Development Corporation he was very properly crying out for more funds to do all sorts of extremely important things in Cumbernauld. There is a competition for resources in this nation, and we must face up to that problem.
I wish to ask about the rise in the cost of a unit. I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and, without mentioning any matters which might be privileged, I can say that we make visits and learn things and that one of the things which we have learned

is the fantastic cost of even the orthodox equipment used for today's Army. For example, the simple range-finding equipment for guns, which used to be a very cheap and simple contraption, is now an electronic computer which costs £25,000 to put on a jeep. It is in that context that the Conservative Party must view their own commitments. Those who want to petition most against the disbanding of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are also the most formidable lobby in the country for the reduction of taxation. It must be made clear that the Exchequer consequences of this kind of attitude are very considerable.
What is the cost of the Argylls? It would be interesting if some indication could be given of the cost of the regiment for a year, because I do not believe the right hon. Member for Argyll when he says it is not particularly expensive.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has deep knowledge of defence matters, which he gains from the Select Committee. The only point I was making was that in my view they must be cheaper than the Parachute Battalion.

Mr. Dalyell: I take the point, but it is still not cheap.
I think that other comparisons have to be made. The proposal is to keep the Argyll and Sutherlands. This is proposed in a country which under-pays its nurses and its teachers, which does not build as many hospitals as it ought, and a country, moreover, which cannot apparently afford to go ahead with the developments in particle physics at C.E.R.N. and Culham. Yet are we to incur military expenditure for which there is no operational requirement?

An Hon. Member: It is the kind of Government that we have.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think it is. I rather suspect that the right hon. Member for Barnet knows that my kind of argument is true or else, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would have been here today.
Fourthly, are we being unfair to Scotland? During my National Service I served with the Royal Hampshire Regiment. They have their precious traditions, just as the hon. Member for Ayr who served in Korea knows that the Gloucester have their traditions. Their


traditions are as precious to them as those of the Argylls may be to us, and on the issue of tradition perhaps I might be forgiven a personal reference.
As some of my hon. Friends know, one of the regiments under discussion was founded in 1678 by an ancestor and namesake of mine, a man who was sent to the Tower of London, from which I am glad to reveal he escaped. I have had many letters from people saying that they are appalled that a descedent of his should publicly take my kind of attitude, but from all that we know about him he was a realist. He founded a troop of cavalry with a clear and definite operational requirement in his view, namely, to restrain the activities of some 17th century Scottish religious bigots. That was a clear operational requirement in his view, and I think that he would have been the first to be appalled at keeping regiments for which there was no operational requirement.
If his shade could be convinced by the Defence Secretary about the assumptions on which the White Paper is written and the operational need for the Greys, because it would all depend on the arguments used by the Defence Secretary, he would take a different view and keep the Greys. But failing that in the absence of a demonstration of operational requirement, even though he founded the Scots Greys, he would have been the first to move the closing order on them.
It is a question of realism and operational requirements. I am told in many letters that I am irresponsbile, that I am not fit to be a Scottish Member of Parliament, and that I am not fit to represent West Lothian, although I receive many letters of a contrary opinion. On this kind of issue it would be better if politicians spoke out and said what they really feel, because only in that way will some of us be able to drag what I believe to be a minority of our fellow countrymen into the realities of the late 1960s.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I seem to be fated to follow controversial speeches by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not

follow him, except in one respect: that I intend to say what I think.
I should like to make a constructive proposal, and if possible to draw a common sense line between emotion, tradition, and sentiment on the one hand, and manpower planning and cost on the other. The Minister will no doubt be relieved to know that I do not intend to make a long speech.
I probably have as much right as anybody here to be sentimental about Scottish regiments. For three generations and two wars members of my family served with the Cameron Highlanders, another with the Highland Light Infantry, and another with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Three of them never came back, and two of them were severely wounded. Hon. Members may think that that was a very good reason for joining the Navy, but my main reason for doing so was that it was the only way that I knew, at 13, of getting a tin hat and a Service respirator.
I was also among a group of Members who carried out a quiet campaign behind the scenes to see that the Gordon Highlanders were not one of the regiments which bit the dust. This was a group of Members representative of the three main parties in the House. While we are relieved that the Gordons are not one of the regiments to go, I am sorry that the Argylls are scheduled for disbandment. If they go, only the Gordons of the four regiments which I mentioned will remain, though I do not accept the inevitability of the disbandment of the Argyll and Sutherlands.
Perhaps I might try to put the position in perspective. The latest proposed cuts are the end of a long series of amalgamations begun in 1957 by the Tory Government. By 1961 the Army had been reduced by no fewer than 51 units of regiment and battalion size. In the light of that, the Tory Motion rings a little hollow. When I and my colleagues vote in the same Lobby as the Conservatives tonight, we shall be voting against the Government's policy of disbanding the Territorial Army and scrapping the Territorial tradition, against their policy of wasting great potential for recruitment and for service in civil emergency based on one of mankind's most powerful instruments. According to a book which


I read recently, man's territorial instinct is even more powerful than his sexual instinct and that is saying something.
Before making a practical and constructive suggestion, perhaps I might remind the Minister of one or two facts of which he is probably well aware. One point has already been made. I am referring to this figure of 80 per cent. non-preference. The statement that 80 per cent. of recruits joining the Army do not claim one unit rather than another is not true, at least not of that part of Scotland where I live. I know it cannot be true, and I have that on good authority. This may be the average figure for the United Kingdom, but not for Scotland.
I propose to make against the statistical point which I made earlier, namely, that whereas Scotland has about one-eighth of the population of England, she has one-third as many Regular soldiers as England has.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Is that so?

Mr. Davidson: Yes, that is an established fact, and I can produce the figures if the hon. Gentleman is interested in them.

Sir C. Osbome: No.

Mr. Davidson: England has a population of 44 million, with 46,000 Regular soldiers. Scotland, with a population of 5,200,000, has about 15,000 Regular infantry soldiers. The hon. Gentleman will therefore see that my figures are correct.
Against that is the fact that only 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom based Army, 11 per cent. of which is Scottish, is based on Scottish soil. In other words, one man per thousand of the male population in England is a Regular soldier, whereas for Scotland the figure is about 3 per thousand. I think the Minister should bear those figures very much in mind when final decisions are taken on the subject under discussion this evening.
Has the Minister calculated the value to trade and commerce of the Scottish regiments? I am not speaking idly. I was present in Bangkok at the Asian Trade Fair on British Day. The pipe band of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards was playing, and it attracted more attention and drew more people into that

enormous display on that day than did any other event when other nationalities had their national days.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Were they pipers?

Mr. Davidson: Yes. As a piper perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards are outstanding as pipers.
Perhaps I might also ask the Minister whether he has taken into account the adaptability of the Scottish Regiments.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Even if they were not in uniform, is it not true that the people would still have gone to listen to the pipers?

Mr. Davidson: They would have been a great deal more comfortable if they had not been in uniform, because it was a sweltering hot day.
Has the Minister taken account of the extreme adaptability of Scottish soldiers? I was given an instance by a colonel the other day of how one unit, which I shall not name, was transformed into a para-troop unit, back into an infantry unit, then into something else, and back into an infantry unit again during action in France and Italy.
Has he taken into account the enormous financial savings that could be made —I say this without stating facts, but on very good authority—if a few of the planners were allowed to do a little less planning and weapons could be produced, when they must be produced—I am not a warmonger—without being modified, re-modified and modified again, so that the cost escalates from start to finish by perhaps 400 or 500 per cent.?
I am prepared to accept that there is a need to reduce the total strength of the Regular Army. The Army today is trained against a background of armoured weapons, nuclear weapons, and even, perhaps, chemical and biological weapons, and beneath the shadow of air power. Obviously, we cannot preserve, and do not want to preserve, the same ratios between infantry and other troops as the armies which fought at Minden, Waterloo and Mons. We accept this, but given the general defence context of today, the decision to abolish the regimental centres and identities in the absence of a reserve territorial force is very unwise in my view


and that of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Bench.
I wish to end by making a constructive proposition, and I should be most grateful if the Minister would give it his serious consideration. I am certain that we need a national Territorial reserve, regionally-based, which could take over civil defence and activity in times of civil emergency. It could assume the role of the previous Territorial Army, but with perhaps a greater accent on training for guerilla warfare and activities of that sort. I draw the Minister's attention to what is going on in the West Country at present, where members of the populace are looting from scrap dumps. I hope that they will not fall prey to disease as a result. A Territorial unit on the scene could take charge and stop that sort of thing going on.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: So can the police.

Mr. Davidson: If there were more police, but the police are already there and have their hands full. The job is more suitable for a Territorial unit.
The redundant regimental centres could be used as headquarters for such a national Territorial reserve. Such a plan would obviously need to be very carefully devised. It might well be possible to retain a Regular company, or possibly a smaller unit of each of the famous Scottish regiments—and English regiments, but that is not what we are debating—regiments which have come through both world wars with such honour and distinction. Such depot units could have the function of training the territorial reserve, recruiting for both territorial and Regular battalions, maintaining the traditions and ceremonial, and providing the essential link between, for example, an Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Territorial reserve regiment with all the functions I have outlined and the Highland Brigade of Regular battalions which already exists.
I hope that the Minister will give this proposition very serious consideration. I believe that it would mean the retention of all that is best in the Scottish regiments. It would not be immensely expensive, and it would provide the type of reserve that I feel the country cannot afford to be without.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I should like to make one or two comments in the two minutes remaining to back-benchers.
First, when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) makes a speech such as he did, he should stay in the kitchen and take the heat that should be coming to him. He made a grossly improper speech and put forward heavily-loaded questions to the effect that the commanding officer of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Aden had behaved quite improperly, and that his battalion had failed to do its duty. It is absolutely outrageous for any Scottish hon. Member to say that in the House. I hope that when he winds up the Minister will put the record straight. He knows, as we all do, that the regiment would welcome an inquiry on what happened in Aden. Then the record would be straight, and some other heads might roll, including that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Tarn Dalyell)— notwithstanding General Dalyell 200 years ago.
But today we have been debating what may be the demise of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and possibly the Scots Greys. All Scottish Members should be putting their backs into seeing that this does not happen, yet we had cries of "Hear, hear" from Members opposite, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, to every suggestion that these regiments might go. This is outrageous, and something the Scottish people will not forget when the Election comes. I am glad that, if at all possible, we shall retain the regiment if it has not been disbanded. I hope that every hon. Member will support the Motion in the Lobbies.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I must at the outset declare some interests. First, I was in the Regular Army until a German bullet put an end to that. As a Gunner commanding a Scottish battery in a Scottish division for most of the war and fighting alongside Scottish regiments, I feel well qualified to speak about them. Indeed my testimony is free of that suspicion of partiality which might be ascribed to me had I been a member of one of these regiments.
I am obliged to declare a further interest. I should probably not be alive and here today if the battalion of Highlanders with whom I made the assault crossing at the Elbe had not, after I was wounded, detailed a party to take me back speedily across the river for the necessary blood transfusions and penicillin. This is a personal debt which I must acknowledge.
In addition, most of us have family links with these regiments. Hon. Members who have spoken have made this clear. I make no apology for having started on a personal note because it is important that the Government should understand that in Scotland the regiments are closely connected not only with areas but with people and families. This is more so in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain. It is the secret of the good recruiting in Scotland, and it explains the tradition of soldiering as a career which is widely found in Scotland, and which has just been recorded in the figures given by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). The regimental system has given British infantly a spirit and fighting strength which has carried it through unbearable situations, and has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out, the envy of other countries. This is not limited to Scotland. It also applies to English and Welsh regiments, but that system means more in Scotland and is more prized and precious there. To damage it in Scotland is to take serious risks with future recruiting, besides shattering a delicate mechanism.
The Government propose to disband the second battalion of the Scots Guards and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders as a regiment. In their White Paper they say that a regiment of the Royal Armoured Corps is to be nominated later—presumably for disbandment. If that later announcement were to be the Royal Scots Greys, this would mean an inordinate proportion of the cuts falling on Scottish regiments, and that would be intolerable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) had an Adjournment debate on 2nd July, when he pointed out that the Greys were the only Scottish cavalry regiment, and spoke of

their prowess. It was appropriate that he should raise this, as he is related to that Ensign Ewart of the Greys who captured a French Standard at Waterloo after the famous charge of the Greys.
I applaud the attendance at the debate of the four or five Scottish Labour Members who have been here throughout, though at least one of them was here in order to press for the abolition of most, if not all, of the Army. But where were the other 40 or so Scottish Labour Members? Why have they not been here during the debate? The hon. Gentlemen who are pointing have not been here during the whole of the debate. Others have, and I applaud that.
I am not suggesting that no reductions in the infantry have been necessary in the last 10 years. Our charge against the Government is that these latest proposals have been made necessary only by panic decisions to reduce Britain's commitments, and that these panic decisions have arisen from gross mismanagement of our economic affairs. The extraordinary changes in policy, apparently made necessary only for economic reasons, are recorded in the Government's own statements over the past two and a half years. In the White Paper of February, 1966 it was stated that, after far-reaching examination of the nation's defence needs in the next decade, it is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade, and I quote:
We believe it is right that Britain should continue to maintain a military presence in this area.
That was in February, 1966. In June, 1966 the Prime Minister was reported in the Press as warning that the world was too small for Britain to contract out and leave it to the Americans and Chinese, eye-ball to eye-ball, to confront each other. By the end of last year Ministers were swallowing these words and taking decisions to pull out of both South East Asia and the Persian Gulf. It was Labour mismanagement of the economy that forced the Government to take decisions which the Secretary of State for Defence admitted involved serious risks. Last week's White Paper made it clear that the reductions now proposed arise from those decisions. We must not be surprised if we lose hundreds of millions of pounds in trade in the Far East


and Middle East as a result of these decisions, but I will not pursue those matters now.
This evening we are concerned that serious damage is being done to the defence forces of this country, and in particular to the infantry. This is another grave risk which we need not as a country have run.
The Under-Secretary reminded us of the amalgamations carried out a few years ago when the Conservative Party were in office. He then read an excerpt from the Daily Telegraph reporting that these amalgamations were acceptable. But they were not disbandments; they were amalgamations that even the newspapers were reporting were proving acceptable, though not necessarily in all cases. These were painful, but they were part of a reduction which could be seen to be necessary. I was especially interested in the amalgamation of the Sea-forth and Cameron Highlanders, regiments which I knew well. As could be foreseen, that amalgamation, though its necessity was regretted, was happily and successfully accomplished. The resulting new regiment, the Queen's Own Highlanders, was very soon distinguishing itself by its prompt and skilful action in Brunei. What the Under-Secretary read out confirmed the acceptance that those proposals at that time received, even though there were, naturally, considerable doubts and anxieties beforehand.
Last week's proposal was altogether different. It proposed the death of a highland regiment, the Argylls. To many of us in Scotland this is incredible; in fact, it seems impossible. Do the Government realise that they are proposing to abolish the original "thin red line"? I have been glad to note that in the last few days some of the Press have recalled this part of the Regiment's history.

Mr. Reynolds: The second battalion.

Mr. Campbell: The Minister says it is the second battalion. This is the point; there is only one battalion now. If he abolishes the one remaining battalion, the successor of the "thin red line", he is abolishing the "thin red line".

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intervening. He

referred to the "thin red line"; he now claims that the second battalion is the successor to the "thin red line". I would accept that other battalions in the amalgamation could be the successors of the Argylls.

Mr. Campbell: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consult the Argylls and he would find that they are the "thin red line". I am glad that some of the Press recently have recalled this part of the Regiment's history, under Sir Colin Campbell, a sturdy Scottish soldier whose career spanned the Peninsular and Crimean Wars as well as the Indian Mutiny.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) has not been here during the whole of the debate, although she made a statement reported in the Scottish Press last Saturday which, in my opinion, was a shocking attempt to face both ways, for the Scottish National Party have adopted on this question an attitude entirely unrepresentative of Scottish opinion. At their annual conference last year they defeated by a huge majority a motion deploring disbandment of the Scottish regiments. Among the reasons given was that the regiments had been formed by London Governments to hold down the Scots and to build the so-called British Empire. Although this is the fundamentalist attitude previously taken by S.N.P. leaders, 1 wish to make it clear beyond any doubt that these sentiments, together with the conference vote, are the exact opposite of the feelings of the majority of people in Scotland. I need hardly say that the S.N.P. conference in Aberdeen this year did not dare to raise the subject at all, and I can understand why the hon. Lady has decided to stay away from this debate.
I turn to the Argylls, which is the regiment now under threat. This regiment has done much in recent years, and last year the regiment pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Government in Aden by reoccupying Crater without a casualty. This was at an anxious time when several British lives had been lost and when there was a prospect of considerable further bloodshed on both sides. This is the kind of task, a task of international policing, at which the Scottish infantry have been superb. Before Aden that same battalion was for two and a half


years in South-East Asia, for long periods of that time in Borneo, engaged in confrontation. I visited the battalion in South-East Asia a year and a half ago and in every headquarters I visited I heard how well they had done. This was before they went to Aden.
Incidentally, the Under-Secretary in his opening statement mentioned some of the operations in which the Argylls had been engaged since the war as if that were a complete list, but he did not mention Borneo or Cyprus.

Mr. Boyden: I was selective; I was not trying to be complete.

Mr. Campbell: The Argylls were in Cyprus and Borneo, as well as the Gordons. Before that they were in Korea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr was himself with the Argylls in Korea, and they were engaged immediately in a desperate action in support of the United Nations where a posthumous Victoria Cross was awarded to them. They were then in Cyprus. Here they faced a very difficult situation. Not only was it made difficult by the invidious task of keeping order with two embattled communities on the island, but they also had to contend with visiting politicians. Here I refer to the right hon. Lady who is now Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. She was widely reported in the Press as criticising the Argylls at that time, and when she held a Press Conference on her return it was reported in The Times of 23rd September, 1958;
Mrs. Castle said that she stood by her comments on the rough handling by British troops when 'in hot pursuit.' … I believe it is wrong for detainees of various ages and conditions of health to be expected to stand the same treatment through drill or parades as tough, young Highland soldiers.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady was rejected by the Government of that day in what she said and rejected by many of her hon. Friends. Incidentally, I gave notice to the right hon. Lady that I should be making reference to her in this debate. I hope that she had nothing to do with this decision, although she is a member of the Cabinet.
Now I come to the incredible speech by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It contained what I can only describe as shocking statements about the Argylls' conduct in Aden and that of their commanding officer, Colonel

Mitchell, put in an interrogative form to the Government and asking for an inquiry. Fortunately, the Secretary of State for Defence has already assured my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll —and he nodded his assent again today when the point was raised—that Colonel Mitchell's conduct was correct, and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that he was an outstanding officer in his duties in Aden. If the Government decide to hold a special inquiry, we shall support them from this side of the House. We are sure this it would simply add further credit to the Argylls' record.
One of the reasons for the good recruiting of the Argylls is that in recent years they have been engaged in operations in which they have been successful and have been seen to be successful. Only last week, the Ministry of Defence held a Press conference pointing to the apparent paradox of a crisis in recruiting at the same time when severe reductions were being made in the infantry. However, it is no paradox. If the Army is truncated, it becomes less attractive. In a recruiting crisis, the worst and clumsiest action that a Government could take would be to kill off a regiment. This document is a death warrant, but, fortunately, it is one which can be rescinded.
If the Government understood that intangible but powerful force—the regimental spirit and its strength in Scotland —they would be acting differently. Instead of the expensive advertising in the Press which has been referred to, including photographs of self-conscious young officers with pipes leaning against mess mantelpieces surrounded by dogs, they would foster rather than destroy the regiment, which is the chief factor in infantry recruiting. They would then get more recruits less expensively.
In recent years, recruiting for the Scottish regiments has been outstanding compared with others. In have the most recent figures before me, and the Argylls' recruiting figures for 1967 and the first half of 1968 are better than those of any of the other Highland regiments. As I have said, no doubt part of the reason for that is the successful operations in which they have been engaged. What folly it is to throw away an asset like that.
Then I would draw attention to the many officers from Scottish regiments


who have risen to high positions and occupy them today. This is not remarkable, because I know that this is where the tradition of soldiering enters in—as a profession of world peace-keeping besides the defence of Britain in times of grave emergency. I would refer only to the recently retired Chief of the General Staff, the top post in the Army, who was promoted to Field Marshal earlier this year. This latest Field Marshal is from a Highland regiment.
The infantry will continue to be needed for peace-keeping in disturbed areas, besides the defence of the free world. The situation in Cyprus today is an example of peace-keeping being needed. The British infantry at battalion and company level excels in the adaptability, tact and skill to do the right thing in dealing with local peoples, terrorism, and difficult political situations. This has been proved in Malaya, Borneo, Aden and elsewhere. In his interesting speech, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out cogently the rôle played by the regimental spirit; and another outstanding quality of the British infantry is their dependability in extreme adversity.
What is it that keeps groups of ordinary men, not a carefully picked elite, hanging on and fighting back, though exhausted and decimated by casualties, running out of ammunition and supplies, knowing that plans have gone wrong because of enemy successes, outnumbered and surrounded, continuously shelled, in appalling conditions of cold or mud, and with no sign of help or relief? It is the feeling that their regiment will never crack—that the Argylls will not falter or fail in their allotted tasks. That is the key to the invincibility which wins the last and vital battle. Field Marshals Wavell and Montgomery and Sir Arthur Bryant have stated this plainly. Can we afford to throw away all this?
It was largely due to this that the Nazi jackboot never reached these shores and Hitler's pogroms were brought to an end. Those facts are too easily forgotten over 20 years later.
Now the Government are proposing to do what our enemies in two world wars could not, to obliterate the Argylls.

However, the Government have not heard the last of this, because a petition is being started in Scotland which I can assure the Minister will gather strength from day to day.
Before the Minister accuses me of being a militarist, let me make it clear that a great deal of my work since the war, as a diplomat, was spent in working on disarmament and the peaceful settlement of disputes, including several years in our permanent delegation to the United Nations in its early days. That is why I am conscious of the continuing need for world police forces.
I repeat the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate. The Conservatives will, if returned to office before the disbandment of the Argylls, seek to find a way of retaining their identity. However, we ask the Government to look again at the matter now, especially this shortsighted decision on the Argylls. If they persist and we are not able to reverse this decision, Ministers will be haunted for the rest of their lives when they hear the mourning music of the pipes. There are many sad tunes, laments and pibrochs, but there will be no sadder, not even "The Flowers of the Forest", than a composition that I can foresee, "Scotland's Lament for the Argylls".

6.49 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Frankly, I am a little surprised that we should have had this debate sorting out one infantry battalion from a considerable number of others that have been axed or brought to an end over the last 10 years. It is invidious for anyone in my position to have to defend the Government's attitudes which, inevitably, must appear to be denigrating one infantry battalion as against another. I have no intention of doing that, but I shall have to make one or two points to answer what we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I have a very high regard for the Argylls. I visited them at Plymouth a few weeks ago after they returned from Aden. I was extremely impressed by their commanding officer and by the spirit shown by the regiment as a whole. I also remember having a pleasant and excellent lunch sitting by the side of the colonel


of the regiment at the regimental headquarters; at Stirling Castle two short years ago, having seen the old standards of the battalion hanging in the regimental museum. One only has to do this to see with what sort of regard local communities look at battalions in Scotland.
But I must go on to say that local communities look at them—perhaps they are not quite so eager to express it in words—in a very similar way in the rest of the United Kingdom—in Ireland, in Wales and in England itself. There is no special problem of this nature in Scotland. Perhaps things are put more publicly into people's feelings in Scotland. But the love and respect given to a local battalion is common throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
But today we are dealing mainly with one particular Scottish battalion. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that in 1957 there were no cuts in infantry battalions in Scotland but that there were two mergers. That is true. But the basic decision then was that the number of infantry battalions in Scotland had to be reduced by two, and it was done by merging four battalions into two. That was apparently acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
The decision that has been taken this time is also that two battalions should go from Scottish infantry regiments. One was announced a little while ago. It has already been disbanded at its own request. It felt that once the announcement had been made it was better for it to go quickly.
The other has now been announced, and we are debating it. But it does not necessarily have to be an actual disbandment, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is objecting to. We have no objection to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders merging with any other battalion in the Scottish Division that the regimental Colonels can agree upon. We took the decision of a reduction of one battalion in the Scottish Division having consulted those concerned—the colonels of the regiments and others—and it was they who expressed the point of view that it should be a disbandment rather than an amalgamation, and so we accepted that. But if they want to change their minds and provide for the amalgamation of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders with another regiment in the Scottish Division,

we are prepared to accept it provided that the amalgamation can be one within the Division.
The Government have decided that as our commitments have been reduced we must reduce the Scottish Division by one battalion. How it is done is a matter primarily for agreement. The final decision rests with us, but we try to meet the wishes of the colonels of the regiments and the officers and men serving in them; and up to this moment they have decided that they would rather have a disbandment. That is how it is being done. As long as we finish up with one battalion less we are prepared to look at it if the desire exists among the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the other Scottish regiments. But there is no doubt about the fact that one battalion must go in the Highland Brigade in the time scale laid down in the White Paper.

Sir R. Cary: Following the debate, could the colonels be asked to reconsider the matter again?

Mr. Reynolds: They have already considered it and given their advice and we have accepted that advice. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn thought that there was something wrong in disbanding a regiment, but he accepted that traditions were still carried on with amalgamation. The Government's decision is that one battalion in the Highland Brigade must go. If the colonels and all others concerned want to do it a different way, we are prepared to do it, but one battalion must go. The Government should not be blamed for deciding specifically that it is to be by disbandment rather than amalgamation. Amalgamation would cover the point as well as disbandment. One battalion must go. If the individuals concerned rethink the matter, there is pleny of time. We are talking about a disbandment to take place several years from now. If those concerned want it done a slightly different way, it is up to them.

Mr. George Brown: I am puzzled. Who are the colonels? If the Government have decided that one battalion shall go, we shall all vote for that. But why does my right hon. Friend say that a group of men—I do not know who they are—whom he calls the colonels


shall decide whether a regiment goes? Could he tell us who the colonels are?

Mr. Reynolds: They are the representative colonels, who are usually either the senior officer of the battalion still serving or, more likely, a retired officer of that battalion. They look after regimental interests. The Government's decision was that there must be a reduction of at least one battalion in that brigade. In our attempt to bring it about, we followed the normal method of consulting the regimental colonels. I can best explain this to my right hon. Friend by saying that it is almost akin to consulting the chairmen of the trade union branches concerned to find out what their views are before coming to a decision. We have had the consultation, and the decision has been taken.

Mr. George Brown: But the chairmen of the trade union branches are in office. The colonels are not.

Mr. Reynolds: They are in office as colonels of their regiments. It is an office which is actually there on the establishment at any particular time. We had consultations with them and took their views into account before saying that it would be a disbandment rather than an amalgamation of battalions in the regiment.
But in the White Paper just issued and in the White Paper issued last year we are dealing with 13 or 14 battalions which are to be disbanded over the next few years. We have heard a great deal today about the history of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. I could go through every one of the regiments in the British Army—the Lancashire Fusiliers, the Irish Fusiliers, the 4th Battalion the Queens, the 4th Battalion Royal Anglians—and without exception give a similar regimental history for each one. This is the difficulty that one has when one tries to take a particular regiment and make a case for its being exempted from any general reduction, because pretty well every regiment in the British Army can justly claim that it has a fine record over a long period. As with other organisations, their efficiency tends to go up and down over the years. At one time they are at the peak of success, but individuals move on and at other times they are not quite as

efficient as they were before. So it would be unfair to try to decide which battalion should go solely on the basis of efficiency. We have looked at all methods of doing it; and we have been forced to the conclusion that, unless there are other real overriding factors, one has to look at the juniority of the regiment concerned. and it has been done on the basis of "last in, first out", which works in a number of other fields.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was one of the most successful Scottish regiments over recruiting. He claimed that half the recruits to the Highland Brigade went to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. This sort of thing has been said so many times that I must look at the facts. Taking the Scottish Division as a whole, there is nothing to show that that Division recruits better than any other infantry division in the British Army. This is a myth that seems to have got about. There is nothing in it. No one can prove that the Scottish Division or the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruits any better than any other unit. It all depends on where one takes one's figures.
I would point out that between January and March this year the Army as a whole was recruited up to 1·3 per cent. below establishment. That is the figure for the Army as a whole over the whole of the United Kingdom. In the first quarter of this year the Scottish battalions about which we were talking were 7 per cent. below establishment, compared with 1·3 per cent. for the Army as a whole.

Sir F. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the recruiting figures for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders compare with those for other regiments? It is not the Highland Brigade or the Scottish Division; it is the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Mr. Reynolds: For several years, under arrangements brought into operation by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, recruits have gone to the brigade rather than an individual regiment. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman trying to claim that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders had been better than anyone else at recruiting in the last few months. I have the figures for the period


1st March to 1st June last. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders got 32 new recruits, the Gordons 44 and the Highland Fusiliers 33. So the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders did no better and no worse than any other battalion in the Highland Brigade or the Scottish Division.
But most of these new recruits to all these battalions at present remaining in the Scottish Division were not brought in off the streets. They were men from the disbanded Cameronian Regiment transferred to other battalions in the Scottish Division in the main. Most of the recruits to the Scottish battalions over the last couple of months have come from that source, the Cameronian Regiment, which was disbanded, and this has now brought all the Scottish battalions up to establishment.

Mr. G. Campbell: The figures I have are different from those being given by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I cannot go into them now, but I will gladly do so later with him. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the first part of this year for his purpose but that is a very short period. In addition, the death of the Cameronians was about to happen. It is, therefore, a bad period to select as a picture of Scottish recruiting.

Mr. Reynolds: Quite so. One can take any period and show the figures in all sorts of ways—that is precisely what I was saying. The way in which figures have been bandied about today does not prove anything either to the credit or to the discredit of any regiment or Division. The figures prove nothing about the Scottish Division. They do not make it better or worse than any other infantry division of the British Army. But the recruiting myth has grown up and we must dispel it. We must have it established that Scottish recruiting is no better and no worse than the recruiting for any other good infantry battalions and divisions in the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he found difficulty in supporting the Government and that he would abstain. He said that the Government should bring out their policy for the future of our defence commitments and manpower before deciding on piecemeal cuts of bat-

talions. But in July last year and January this year we brought out two White Papers spelling out our commitments and stating that there was to be a reduction of 75,000 in the uniformed manpower of the Services. This latest White Paper spells out how that reduction is to be brought about. It does not represent a change of policy but a working document arising from the major policy decisions of the last 12 months.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked a number of questions about the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders including some details which I cannot give him today. He asked about reports of differences of opinion which appeared in the Press about the recapture of Crater by the Argylls in the closing months in Aden. I want to make it clear that there was complete agreement between the military and civil authorities on the need to go back into Crater at that time. The Aden Brigade was ordered to enter it on 3rd July.
It was then far from certain that our Forces would not be bitterly opposed and it was, therefore, decided that only a limited penetration should be made with exploitation afterwards should it prove successful. From reconnaissance reports, the Commanding Officer of the 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was optimistic that a relatively deep penetration could be made. The agreed outlined plan was for the 1st Battalion of the Argylls to enter and advance in a series of phases, with a second battalion—in the event it was not required —in reserve and available to occupy the north-west of the town.
The Argylls were to enter by Marine Road and establish, by phases, a presence in the banking and business centre. Secondly, they were to exploit to the police station and control the central and southern parts of the town and then move towards the armed police barracks but avoid close contact with it.
After some slight initial opposition on 3rd July there was little further firing during the operation and at midnight the Brigadier-General (Staff) of Middle East Land Forces, accompanied by the Acting Commander of Aden Brigade, who was present with the Commanding Officer of the 1st Battalion of the Argylls, personally ordered the Commanding Officer


of the Battalion to exploit the speed and success of the initial thrusts, and the G.O.C. the following morning ordered the rest of the town to be taken over by 5 p.m. on 5th July.
The whole operation was carried out in accordance with the plan laid down and agreed between the civil and military authorities in Aden. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has nothing to withdraw. He asked some important questions, and I am answering him. I am emphasising that the operation was carried out superbly by the battalion and also by the armoured cars. People have tended to forget the part played by the armoured cars because of the publicity given to the Argylls. I emphasise that the plan was drawn up in Aden and that it was carried out extremely well and was seen in a favourable light by public opinion here at the time.

Mr. Dalyell: Is this a clear statement that on every occasion Colonel Colin Mitchell of the Argylls accepted the orders of his brigade commander and of the Army Commander?

Mr. Reynolds: It is a clear statement that, so far as the re-entry of Crater is concerned, it was done in complete agreement on a plan worked out between the military and civil authorities of the area. Everything worked smoothly and the relations between all officers and units concerned were as they should have been.
I return to the main theme of the debate. We are being accused of treating Scotland unfairly. But, as my hon.

Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, Scotland, with 10 per cent. of the population, will have 16 per cent. of our infantry battalions in 1972 — seven battalions, instead of four, which is what Scotland would have had if a percentage basis had been chosen.

This battalion, the Argylls, was formerly the 91st Foot, formed in 1794, and the 93rd Foot, formed in 1799. It has been present at many battles. I met a former Pipe Major of the Argylls before the White Paper came out. He said that it would be unfair if there were any further amalgamation of the Argylls because, he said, "We have been amalgamated before". When I asked him when this had taken place, he replied that it was after Alma and Balaclava, when the 91st and the 93rd were amalgamated under the Cardwell reforms. That is true, but so has nearly every other regiment changed from numbers to names over a similar period.

I understand that the motto of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is Ne obliviscaris. This is an injunction to people not to forget. It also has a positive meaning for people to remember. Whatever happens to this gallant regiment in this unfortunate time of cutting down the number of units, people will always remember the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Question put:—
That this House deplores the decision to abolish Scottish units announced in Command Paper No. 3701.

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 299.

Division No. 279.]
AYES
[7.6 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Bernard
Corfield, F. V.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.


Astor John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Awdry Daniel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Balniel, Lord
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crowder, F. P.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Batsford, Brian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Currie, G. B. H.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bell, Ronald 
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dance, James


Bennett Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Burden, F. A.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Berry Hn. Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, Sir Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Donnelly, Desmond


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Doughty, Charles


Body, Richard
Clark, Henry
Dougtas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter
Drayson, G. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cordle, John
Eden, Sir John




Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Loveye, W. H.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lubbock, Eric
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Sharples, Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley
Silvester, Frederick


Cower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Grant, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eltlon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mill, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Teeling, Sir William


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hastings, Stephen
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heseltine, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Waddington, David


Hlley, Joseph
Nott John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hordern, Peter
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hunt, John
Pardoe, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Jones, Arttiur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, N. R.


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Kerby, Capt. Henry
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Jasper More.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Albu, Austen
Binns, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Alldritt, Walter
Blackburn, F.
Cant, R. B.


Allen, Scholefield
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Archer, Peter
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Armstrong, Ernest
Boston, Terence
Chapman, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Coe, Denis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boyden, James
Conlan, Bernard


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Cronin, John


Barnett, Joel
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Baxter, William
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bence, Cyril
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George







Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
 Pursey, Cmdr.Harry


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Randall, Harry



Lawson, George



Dunnett, Jack




Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John




Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C''b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, L.M.(Ardwick)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


English, Michael
Linton Marcus
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Ennals, David
Lomas Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Luard, Evan
Roebuck, Roy


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h' m, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ryan, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
MaeColl, James
Sheldon, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McGuire, Michael
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerry
Mackie, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Snow, Julian


Gardner, Tony
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Manuel, Archie
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David
Swingler, Stephen


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tinn, James


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mikardo, lan
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (walsall, N.)


Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Whitaker, Ben


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs, Eirene


Heffer, Eric S.
Neal, Harold
Whltlock, William


Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hilton, W. S.
Noel, Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Horner, John
O'Malley, Brain
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O' Malley, Brian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
Winnick, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Yates, Victor


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Neil McBride and


Hynd, John
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor

SCOTLAND (SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX)

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the effects of the Selective Employment Tax on industry and employment in Scotland.
The House will know that it is frequently claimed in Scotland that fiscal policies which may be appropriate to the economy of England run contrary to the economic needs of Scotland. The Government must be aware of this feeling and one can on occasion, but only on occasion, detect a ritualistic obeisance to it in the stream of emergency statements which have sprung from their mishandling of the economy. I recall, for example, the promise that the development areas would be sheltered from the effect of some of their wilder proposals, but this, as so much else, turned out to be little more than mere words in the double-talk of the last few years. The Selective Employment Tax is the supreme example of the application to Scotland of irrelevant and harmful taxation. As a national tax, it is foolish enough; as a Scottish tax, it is sheer lunacy.
The House will recall that, by introducing the tax in May, 1966, the Government flew in the face of their own White Paper on the Scottish economy published only four months earlier—a significant four months, because a General Election intervened. Since the tax was introduced, there has been a growing tide of opposition to it in Scotland, where we depend so heavily on the service industries. This opposition has been brushed aside by the Government with an insensitivity illustrated by the Secretary of State's rebuke that the Highlands were "whining" in their opposition to the tax. To other objections, they replied that the tax was flexible and could be refined to assist the development areas.
We had an example of this so-called refinement in this year's Finance Bill, which brought Scottish hotel keepers marching in anger on Whitehall. The present Chancellor confessed:
… it is not a wholly popular tax."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 284.]
That is the under-statement of the year. However, I am glad that he agrees that

the tax is unpopular. New taxation is particularly unpopular when imposed by a Government which took office on the promise of no general increase in taxation and then proceeded to increase taxation by over £2,000 million.
The Government have argued that the tax is a success, so they have put up the main rates by 50 per cent. from this autumn. That is a case of a vaulting taxation o'er-leaping itself in advance of the Reddaway inquiry into its effect. No doubt the Government will point today to the £50 million which Scotland will receive in a full year by way of the Selective Employment payments to manufacturers and the Regional Employment Premium, a figure which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) obtained in a Written Answer the other day, but this gifthorse has a strikingly ugly mouth.
First, I do not accept that this is a wisely calculated means of assisting manufacturing industry. A sum of £50 million could be invested more constructively than in the present form of a wages subsidy. Second, there is nothing in the premium system to encourage the economic deployment of labour in manufacturing industry. Third, the premium structure has increased the relative disadvantage of the service industries—a discrimination which will be sharpened when the Selective Employment Tax rates go up in September, at a cost to the Scottish service industries of £45 million in a full year.
These figures conceal the geographical impact of the tax. While the manufacturing subsidy goes primarily to the industrial central belt, the tax falls heavily on the rural and semi-rural areas which have long suffered from loss of population to the central belt and which form the bulk of Scotland's land mass. Indeed, the further one goes from the centre, the more one witnesses the impact of the tax on the local economy.
The Highlands, for instance, have little manufacturing industry. Only one in 10 of the working population is employed in manufacturing. The Government claim that they cannot calculate the annual cost of the tax in the Highlands, but they have not yet challenged my estimate of £2 million or more, a figure which will increase from next September and which has exceeded by far the capital


put into the area by the Highlands and Islands Development Board during its two years of existence.
Agriculture also carries a heavy burden. The tax is repaid at the end of each quarter, but by the end of each of these periods, at the new rates, the industry will have made a tax-free enforced loan to the Government of over £1 million—and this at a time when cash in agriculture is short and credit hard to come by.
I now turn to the impact of the tax on the tourist industry. In its last annual report, the Scottish Tourist Board called attention to the hardship which the tax had brought to the tourist industry, a very important growth industry in Scotland. It pointed out that the tax had forced many hoteliers to dispense with staff whom they would normally have retained during the winter months and that the tax served to aggravate the serious staffing difficulties which had faced the industry for a long time. It added:
The effect which this tax is having on such an important servicing industry requires immediate reconsideration.
Of course, the Government did reconsider the effect of the tax at long last, just as we on this side had urged them to do from the day of its introduction. This led, in this year's Budget, to what the President of the Board of Trade, opening the second day's debate, called a "concession", whereby hotels in certain rural areas would get their Selective Employment Tax refunded.
During his speech, I rose six times to ask him what this concession would amount to in Scotland, but I had no reply. In the debate, I said that we would feel that the Government had cheated if the net result was that the Scottish tourist industry had to pay more in Selective Employment Tax than it had in the past.
This reconsideration led to the notorious Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill, whereby hotels on one side of a seemingly arbitrary line would get the rebate and those on the other side would not. The outcry against these anomalies was such that the Government refrained the Schedule and included large areas which had been previously excluded.

But, because of the relentless crash of the guillotine on our debates on the Finance Bill, the Schedule was not debated, either in its original form or in its more recent amended form.
On Third Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) called attention to the grotesque anomalies still remaining in the Bill and pointed out the hardship and anomalies which would arise in his own constituency, but there was no attempt to answer the important questions he raised.
Of course, this change will help hotels in many rural areas and I welcome that, because it will pay them back a tax which should not have been levied on them in the first place, but the concession is less attractive than it appears. What I feared has come about. Despite the revision of Schedule 17, from this Autumn the Scottish tourist industry will be paying out £150,000 a year more in S.E.T. than before the so-called concession. The increase in the tax will take £750,000. The repayments arising from the original Schedule amount to about £300,000, and those from the revisions to the Schedule to a further £300,000, making £600,000 in all. This information has been given in various written Answers recently.
It will not be surprising if the industry feels cheated when it discovers that the effect of this much-heralded concession is to increase its S.E.T. bill by £150,000. Further, the catering industry is to get no rebate and will suffer the full impact of the increased tax.
The House will know that the Selective Employment Tax has produced a long string of anomalies. I will give just two. First, a horticulturist has pointed out that his flower-growing concern in Scotland entitles him to a straight repayment of the tax, but if he was to switch to the manufacture of artificial flowers he would gain the premium in addition. Secondly, a large computer data processing centre in Dundee has to pay Selective Employment Tax for its computer processing staff. That is its reward for helping the efficiency of commence and industry in the technological revolution about which the Prime Minister used to speak so much.
Apart from the many anomalies, the very nature of the tax is grossly unfair.


The laundry and dry cleaning industry is particularly hard hit, and the new rate will represent between 4½ and 6 per cent. of turnover. This industry cannot absorb it all. Yet housewives are particularly sensitive to prices in this market. Perhaps the Government now regard the laundry and dry cleaning industry as a dispensable luxury. If so, that is in marked contrast with the Government's attitude towards the industry during the war when it was regarded as essential, and work in it was classified as a reserved occupation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in a letter to me dated 11th July, said:
We recognise that for some firms, including those within the laundry and dry cleaning industries, it has caused difficult problems of adjustment.
It certainly caused a difficult problem of adjustment for one laundry firm in my constituency. The firm had to close down, making 140 workers redundant. The tax certainly had some part to play in the decision to close. It is often the last straw in the small firm's fight to survive. I know of two shops in my constituency which were forced to close by the tax. The Glasgow Herald of 11th July contained the following notice on the public notice page:
Barnet &amp; Son. Notice of removal. Owing to tremendously increased rentals, assessments, and selective employment tax, which would have compelled us to considerably increase the prices of our goods, we have decided to vacate our present premises….
It states that it is moving to another area and cutting down the scope of the business, one reason being Selective Employment Tax. This again illustrates the hardship that the tax has brought to the distributive trades—a fact which gives cause for Co-operative Members to remember whether they are Labour Members or Co-operative Members when it comes to Divisions.
The original purpose of the tax was clearly stated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 3rd May, 1966. The first aim was to raise revenue. The second aim—and it commands more space in the Budget speech —was that the tax should encourage the redeployment of labour. The right hon. Gentleman said:
If manpower can be saved in the service industries … extra labour might well become

available for manufacturing, giving it greater scope for growth. It would be helpful to have a tax system which recognised this.
There are several similar references. The summing up of the purpose of the tax is,
… first, as a means of raising revenue, and also as an incentive for labour economies and manpower redeployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1966; Vol. 727, c. 1454–6.]
We on this side of the House have tried to find out what effect the tax has had in shifting people in Scotland from the service industries to the manufacturing industries, but always without success. I hope that the Government will tell us tonight that if the tax has failed to move people from service industries to manufacturing industries in Scotland it has failed in one of its two original purposes, and that is a further argument for removing the tax altogether.
On the other hand, if the Government can show tonight that the tax has influenced a movement out of the service industries in Scotland, they will simply underline the contradiction between what they say about the pattern of employment in Scotland and what they do about the pattern of employment in Scotland. Indeed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the letter to which I referred, admits that the tax is discriminating. The letter goes on:
Nevertheless, the Government is convinced that it was necessary to discriminate between the service trades and the manufacturing sector of industry in the operation of S.E.T. and investment grants so as to give the maximum help to the production industries upon which the nation depends for some two-thirds of its total overseas earnings.
The hon. Lady might try that on the insurance industry in Perth which makes a large contribution to our balance of payments and yet pays Selective Employment Tax in full. At least the Minister's letter was a frank admission of discrimination. It demonstrates again the Government's curious and economically harmful belief that it is more deserving to make than to sell.
This penalising of the service industries and the original attempt to force people out of them is totally contrary to the Government's declared policy for Scotland. In January, 1966, the Scottish Plan was produced. The tone of the plan was set out in paragraph 1 which stated that


130,000 new jobs would need to be created by 1970. The Report stated:
Of these, some 50,000 might be in manufacturing industry, 20,000 in the construction industry and 60,000 in the service industries.
So the major growth envisaged by the Government in 1966 was that 80,000 of the 130,000 new jobs to be created, or about two-thirds, were to be in the sector of the economy which the Government penalised and discouraged just four months later.
But the contradiction does not end here. Throughout the White Paper there are constant references not only to the importance of the service industries in Scotland, but to their rôle as generators of growth. I want to read some of the Secretary of State's words back to him. Paragraph 124 states:
The service industries, therefore, have a major rôle to play in the build-up of modern manufacturing industry and in the reduction of emigration from Scotland.
Paragraph 125 states:
Certain of the service industries can also make a direct contribution to the development of the Scottish economy since they are themselves generators of economic growth.
In discussing office employment, paragraph 129 of the Report states:
It is important for Scotland to share fully in the development of this type of employment if a balanced modern economy is to be built up.
Yet all of these are the sectors penalised and taxed a few months later, now to be taxed at a rate increased by 50 per cent. We have challenged the Government over and over again on this point. We have reminded them that this White Paper was based on the National Plan, long since discredited and discarded, but the Secretary of State insists that he and the Government adhere to the Plan for Scotland. If that is so, let the right hon. Gentleman consider that the argument in support of the service industries could not be more clearly put than in his own document. The right hon. Gentleman might look again at paragraph 138 to see the dependence of manufacturing industries on the service sector:
… certain of the service industry activities contribute significantly to the satisfactory working of the manufacturing sectors and can help to improve productivity there.
If the Government adhere to this Plan, as they say they do, they should read

carefully paragraph 143 which states— and I quote it in full:
The Government is conscious of the role which the service industries have to play in the expansion of the Scottish economy. In addition to the contribution which certain of them make directly to economic growth, they help provide the basic prerequisites for industry as well as providing the facilities and opportunities which go with a rising standard of living. They also play an important part in influencing both the capacity to restrain migration and the ability to attract new industry.
The argument against the Selective Employment Tax could not be better put. Those were the Government's own words in January, 1966. Let them now act on them by relieving Scotland altogether of this wretched and damaging tax.

7.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I should, perhaps, first explain to the House why I am taking part in this debate, which is specifically concerned with Scottish affairs. The effect of the Selective Employment Tax on Scotland cannot, of course, be judged apart from the general question of the S.E.T. Indeed, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) referred to what he called the general demerits of this tax. Since it is the Treasury which is concerned with the tax as a whole, I am intervening in the debate.
I want to start by looking at the S.E.T. in general. I shall then say something about its application in Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will deal with further specific points which, no doubt, will be raised by hon. Members in the debate.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had admitted in his Budget speech that this was a tax which was not wholly popular. That is true, but it is nothing new against any particular tax. When Income Tax was first imposed, it was wholly denounced. When Purchase Tax was first imposed, it was strongly denounced. The same has happened with the imposition of this new form of tax.
There has throughout been a blanket condemnation by hon. Members opposite in particular without any attempt to


examine the effect which the tax has on the economy or to see it as part of the tax structure as a whole. It is, therefore, important to look at the aims of the tax, to which the hon. Member referred in part, and to see how far they are being achieved.
The first aim of this tax is to raise revenue. If one is faced with a situation, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was faced in the last Budget, of increasing revenue, it must come from either direct or indirect taxation. For years, hon. Members opposite have complained that the basis for indirect taxation was too narrow. If, however, one looks at the base for taxation on goods, one finds that there is little scope for broadening the base because the only goods, in effect, which have been exempted from Purchase Tax and which are exempt at the moment are food, domestic fuel and children's clothes. If one is looking for broadening the base of indirect taxation in terms of imposing it on goods, if one rejects the S.E.T., one must pursue a course of taxing a particular sector where the tax would be economically harmful and particularly unjust.
There are two areas which are largely free from tax: services and construction. It is on these that the S.E.T. falls. Therefore, the second aim of the S.E.T., to which the hon. Member did not refer, is to broaden the base of taxation by redressing the imbalance between goods and services.
The hon. Member stated, as many hon. Members have done, that to select services or particular services for the S.E.T. was somehow to select them as being unworthy. There is nothing about the particular areas of services which bear the tax which has been selected as being somehow unworthy. The tax is not a judgment about merits. It implies an objective standard. It does not regard laundries as a luxury. It does not regard the hotel trade in some way as unworthy. It is simply that this tax broadens the base of taxation. Just as Purchase Tax falls on a large number of items which are not in any sense unworthy, so the S.E.T. falls or services without in any sense condemning the services involved.
The third aim of the S.E.T. was, as the hon. Member stated, to encourage economy in the use of labour in the

services sector and, in the long term, to make more labour available for expansion in manufacturing industry. Looking at the overall position, there can be no doubt whatever about the need to do this. In the six years before the S.E.T. was imposed, the total labour force expanded by about 1¼ million, yet out of that figure just over 10 per cent. went into the manufacturing sector and over 80 per cent. went into services of all kinds.

Mr. John Brewis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman relating his remarks in any way to Scotland? I believe that the Scottish figures are quite contrary to what he is saying.

Mr. Taverne: The Scottish figures have shown an even greater growth in the distributive trades and service sectors than the English figures. First, I am approaching the position in general. Then, I shall relate the position to Scotland.
Therefore, one has the position that the vast bulk of the increased labour force —over 80 per cent.—went to services and just over 10 per cent. to manufacturing industry, yet overall manufacturing industry had shown the shortage of labour which had caused the overheating, which had caused the restraint in growth and which had limited the potential for the expansion of our visible exports.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said briefly in passing that what one wanted to see was something in the nature of a payroll tax applying to all forms of employment. A flat payroll tax which was not selective would, however, have exactly the same effect as an all-round wage increase. It would mean, in effect, that the increase in costs would be equally great over the whole of industry. On the best estimates that we can find, if the whole burden were spread evenly over all and had the effect of an equivalent wage increase, which it would have, the effect might well be to affect for the worse our balance of payments by £350 million a year in lost exports or higher imports.
Judged against the aims of the S.E.T., it is important to see how this has worked out. Again, I start with the general effect. The S.E.T. will raise £500 million a year if one excludes the regional employment premium. It provides something like


5 per cent. of the total yield from all taxes, although it still provides only half of what is provided by Purchase Tax and only 10 per cent. of what is provided by indirect taxes as a whole. If there were no S.E.T., the corresponding burden on other sectors would be correspondingly heavier.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting the overall figures, can he at least quote the Scottish figures in brackets?

Mr. Taverne: I shall come to the Scottish figures when I deal with the effect on Scotland.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred to the general effect of the S.E.T., and it is extremely important first to see the general figures for the whole of Great Britain, including Scotland. The further merits of the S.E.T. are that this is a method of raising revenue which is very cheap, much the cheapest of any form of collection of tax. It has much less impact on the cost of living than Purchase Tax or Customs and Excise duties.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: Sir Fitzroy Maclean (Bute and North Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Taverne: I prefer not to give way. I do not want to take much time. There is limited time for the debate, and it is important that as many hon. Members as possible should have a chance to speak.
As to redressing the imbalance, services are still much more lightly taxed than goods because, while Purchase Tax ranges from 12½ per cent. to 50 per cent. and duties are even higher, the burden which S.E.T. imposes is something like 5 or 6 per cent. of the total expenditure on services.
In considering the changes in employment trends, there is no doubt that since the S.E.T. was imposed, an important change has become visible. It is still early days, it is perfectly true, and one cannot be dogmatic at this stage, but the signs which there are so far strongly suggest that the Selective Employment Tax is having the desired effect.
There was in the past a rapid increase in employment in services without regard to the rate of increase in the economy,

without regard to whether or not this was a time of slow or increasing rate of growth. Yet between 1966 and 1967, in the first year of the tax, employment in distribution and construction fell by 3·7 per cent. and 5·6 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. This is a remarkable change and it it reasonable to suppose that the tax has had its effect on this.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: In Scotland?

Mr. Taverne: I am coming to the Scottish figures.
Part of this shift, it is true—it has been claimed to account for the whole of it, which is not true—part of the shift but only a very small part, has been a shift to self-employment or to part time from full time, but this has been only a very small part of the overall decrease.
If one looks at the Scottish position one finds exactly the same trend, though it is less pronounced. Whereas the average decrease over Great Britain as a whole was 3·7 per cent. in the services position in Scotland it was 2·2 per cent. There was one particular reason for that, and that is to be found in the employment in the construction industries, because there has been no decline in the construction industries in Scotland and this accounts for the lower decrease in services generally in Scotland as compared with the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Taverne: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. No doubt further points can be raised by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I want to finish this explanation.
The reason for the absence of decline in the construction industries in Scotland seems to be an expansion of the construction industry in Scotland and new orders in Scotland. Yet the increase in Scotland, as indeed in England and Wales, appears to have been achieved by higher productivity, which in its turn appears to have been achieved by the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. MacArthur: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and I will not detain him for more than a moment. I should be interested to know how the Minister can


relate this claim to success, that employment in the services sector has fallen in Scotland, with the stated policy of the Government in January, 1966, that 80,000 new jobs would have to be created within these very industries by 1970 if the Scottish Plan was to succeed.

Mr. Taverne: First of all, that refers to 1970, and it is not part of Government policy in any way to found future prosperity on the uneconomical use of labour in any sector of industry whatsoever. The fact remains, in the example from the construction industry, that there, as in other service industries, a considerable increase in productivity has taken place which has seemed to be related to the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax.
However, there is one further outstanding fact which the hon. Member tried to minimise, and that is the overall effect of Selective Employment Tax on the economy of Scotland, because the fact remains that the yield from Scotland of the lax is some £45 million, which is about 10 per cent. of the total, and particularly reflects the size of Scotland in population. Yet regional employment premium going to Scotland amounts to £40 million, the Selective Employment Premium refunds amount to some £10 million. On balance, therefore, the effect on the Scottish economy of this Selective Employment Tax, from which the regional employment premium cannot be separated, is a net gain of £5 million to Scotland. One has the position that the tax remitted from Scotland goes back to Scotland. Whereas if one looks at England and Wales one finds only 20 per cent. is returned in the form of regional subsidies.
It is perfectly true that there has been special concern in particular areas where there has been no industrial base—for instance, the Highlands and Islands, and other areas, and, no doubt, there will be references to these later, and it is suggested that because of this there should be relief of S.E.T. in those areas. Again, of course, one appreciates the very great difficulties with which the Co-operative movement is faced because of the services which it renders in remoter areas, and, of course, because it feels it is wrong in principle to make its members in remoter areas pay, and one is aware of the difficulties which

the Scottish co-operative societies face, but there is no way to exempt them specially without undermining the tax as a whole, and there is no line which can be drawn which would be defensible as against other bodies engaged in retail distribution.
If one comes to the general question, the answer to the special areas is not a general relief from the Selective Employment Tax. This would be an extremely wasteful way of giving relief to particular areas' need. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with questions about the actual way in which relief is being given and should be given, but the sensible way to do this, in order to help employment services which cater for local needs would be to attract this from outside, and it is for this reason that the Government founded their policy on the concession for hotels, because this is particularly a concession which, in the areas where there is no benefit from regional employment premium, can attract further tourists and benefit other industries. The hotel industry is, after all, the only service industry whose income is derived almost wholly from outside.
This concession—I think this has been misunderstood—is not primarily to benefit hotels in areas where the concession applies. It is a concession designed to help rural development areas by attracting tourists to those areas to the benefit of the areas as a whole.
Of course there were difficulties about defining the areas, particularly when one has to base repayment on the labour exchange areas and, of course, one wanted to hear, in debate, after representations, how best this line could be drawn. I was extremely grateful for the speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), who pointed out some of the ways this might be improved, and also for the assiduous representations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). I also saw representatives from the hotel trade.
I think this concession is one which is more generally acceptable than the one which was originally proposed. If one looks at the impact of the tax as a whole, and if one looks at the impact of the tax on Scotland, then already some of the


effects of the tax have become felt, although its real benefits will become available and really visible only in the long-term as the slack in the labour market in the development areas is taken up.
However, I find a Motion such as this, deploring its effect on Scotland, somewhat astonishing, because if one looks at the overall effect on Scotland one finds that, far from harming the economy of Scotland as a whole, the tax should be welcomed in Scotland, because the net effect of the tax is that Scotland, far from being harmed, is a net gainer.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The hon. and learned Gentleman said, and rightly so, that certain specific areas were bound to be mentioned in this debate, and I make no apologies for immediately doing so by mentioning the City of Edinburgh. It is almost exactly a year ago that I raised the question of the burdens which are falling on the City of Edinburgh. Perhaps I should more correctly say, the City of Edinburgh with Leith and Portobello.
I think it would be wholly wrong if, in this debate, a Member who represents an Edinburgh constituency did not bring to public attention the impossible burdens which are falling on manufacturing industries in the city and on one other industry which has been singled out for unfair treatment in this matter. I refer, of course, to the hotels and restaurants within the capital.
I quite realise that I must be extremely careful not to concentrate on the exclusion of Edinburgh from the development areas and the consequent loss of investment grant and regional employment premium, but in order to make later what I consider to be an extremely important point I must quote something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland on reasons for the exclusion of Edinburgh.
In the debate on 5th July last year, the Secretary of State said that the unemployment figures did not justify including Edinburgh in the development areas, and this is, of course, a case that is continuing. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Not only are its figures lower than in any other part of Scotland, but they are amongst the lowest in the United Kingdom.

Then, said the Secretary of State:
In any case, I do not think that Edinburgh's future lies in manufacturing industry …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1942.]
With that remark I entirely and wholeheartedly agree. I do not think that the future of Edinburgh ought to lie in its becoming a great manufacturing and industrial city. The Edinburgh Corporation does not want it to be. But it is one thing to apply a disincentive to new industries starting up there and quite another to penalise industries that are already there and positively encourage them to move out. Whilst Edinburgh should not attempt to be a magnet for new industry, I do not think that the city should lose the industries it already has.

Mr. George Willis: The hon. Gentleman is not forgetting, of course, that Aberdeen has a lower level of unemployment than Edinburgh?

Mr. Stodart: That point had not escaped me. But I imagined that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) might want to say something about that.
This is what the restricting of the regional employment premium to the development areas has done. It is extremely ironical that manufacturing firms in my constituency—and, I have no doubt, those in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—which have drawn, and which continue to draw much labour out of the development areas—in West Lothian, in my case, and probably from East Lothian in the right hon. Gentleman's case—and which have done this useful job throughout the dull days of the pre-war depression, should suffer by being penalised now. It is grossly unfair that they should have to compete with firms not very far away which get the premium in addition to the refund.
The effect of this, is, according to the chamber of commerce report, that 14 out of 26 firms have announced that they have stopped any possible extra development. One might argue that that might not be altogether undesirable if one is not to move in the direction of the industrialisation of Edinburgh, but when it is discovered that eight firms are now considering moving out because of the Selective Employment Tax, amongst other things, one feels that this is where


the Government are doing something positively harmful.
I turn now to the hotel and restaurant side. Restaurants, no matter where they are, are excluded from the Selective Employment Tax refund but, in my view, they do just as important a job as hotels. I dare say that my girth might allow people to suppose that I rather prefer restaurants to hotels but, be that as it may, I think that, by and large, restaurants are much more desirable places than hotels. Further, holidays by caravan are becoming more and more popular, so that the development of more restaurants and cafes to supply their needs is extremely important.
The Selective Employment Tax refund to hotels in certain areas was a very considerable triumph for the energy of the hoteliers, who put their case rather well, and also for those of my hon. Friends who assisted them by taking them to see the Minister of State, Treasury, in order that he might listen to their difficulties, and who gave what advice they could. I, as representing part of the area which does not share in this bounty, nevertheless welcome that highly desirable achievement.
But if Edinburgh is not to become a manufacturing city it ought to be encouraged to become an even greater city for holidaymakers and for people attending conferences. No one can say that the city's present accommodation can meet the demands made on it. The Scottish Tourist Board reports:
Next to London, Edinburgh is the most important tourist centre in Britain.
It also says that 2 million bed nights were spent in hotels, guest houses and board residences in Edinburgh during 1966, and by 1970 it is estimated, particularly when the Commonwealth Games are coming along, there will be a need for more than 3 million bed nights, which is an increase of 50 per cent. on the present available accommodation.
What I thought was so significant—and this is why I quoted the Secretary of State's words to the effect that Edinburgh should not become a manufacturing city —was the comment made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th April, 1968, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We have, however, thought it right not to extend the S.E.T. concession to the more indus-

trial parts of the development areas, where we can look to expansion from manufacturing industry and where R.E.P. is of substantial importance. Nevertheless, hotels in these areas will benefit from the proposed hotel incentive scheme under which there would be a higher rate of grant for development areas as a whole." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 254.]
In other words, what he was saying was "Where we have a city which is not to go in for manufacturing we consider it desirable that it should go in for the tourist trade, and because of that we are extending the concession."
According to the Tourist Board's Report there are 128 hotels and 221 boarding houses in Edinburgh, and I do not know whether that is a complete list. Every one of those establishments will have to pay 50 per cent. more in S.E.T., and there is no question about it that the hoteliers in Edinburgh are being extremely heavily penalised. I know that the other cities in Scotland, among them Aberdeen, are in precisely the same boat in this respect, but at least they get a benefit which Edinburgh does not get, and that is the benefit of higher grants and loans for building and improving hotels, because they are in development areas. That means 5 per cent. more grant, with a £250 higher ceiling. That, again, puts Edinburgh in a thoroughly invidious and unfair situation.
I do not know—perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate can tell us—why the Secretary of State has got his knife in the City of Edinburgh. If he and the Minister of State are not happy and comfortable in their office in Edinburgh and not enjoying hospitality, everyone would be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues vacated their offices in St. Andrew's House and took the whole Selective Employment Tax away with them.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: There are two hon. Members in this House who represent in Scotland, as part of a much bigger job, what is called the Co-operative interest. Those hon. Members are nominated by the Co-operative movement. One represents, and represents very ably indeed, the great industrial, Co-operative and shipbuliding city of Greenock—my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who is on


the Front Bench. The other hon. Member is myself, who also represents a great industrial, Co-operative and shipbuilding constituency called Govan. I think I can say that both of us have done our jobs very well indeed and I hope that we shall continue to do so. I say that because it is difficult for other hon. Members to say it for us.
Tonight my hon. Friend and I find ourselves in opposite camps but only temporarily. This is the sort of conflict which arises in public life. From the conflict which does, may be, exist between my hon. Friend and myself at this moment will emerge the progressive synthesis for which the Labour and Cooperative movements, in Scotland particularly, have always been famous. So tonight, as my first job, I want to convey to the House the feeling which has been expressed in the meetings of Co-operative boards in Scotland.
I have here a large volume of information on these matters. As I go along I shall give a selective presentation of the views of ordinary working men and women who are running a business which has progressed very well indeed in Scotland, and also in England. I say nothing about England, however, because that has already been said in this House in other debates. The feeling expressed by the board of Broxburn Co-operative Society is that the Government have deprived it of £6,000 which was rightly its members'. Their grievance lies in the fact that that £6,000 would have gone to members of the Broxburn Society— the members who make their purchases, keep the society going and keep it prosperous.
I have from Central and East Fife board of directors the intimation that the cost of S.E.T. to them during the year will be £18,040. By that amount the living standard, interpreted as they do it, of their members is correspondingly reduced. Central and East Fife tell me that they will lose in a full, year £24,265. Cowlairs in the City of Glasgow will lose £42,000. Dunfermline, in Fifeshire, will lose what represents a 3d. per pound dividend to its members. East Lothian will lose £20,800. There is no reason why I should leave out Greenock. Greenock will lose £19,600, of which my hon. Friend is very well aware. I

am certain that he, like every Labour Member in Scotland, has made protest on behalf of his members to the appropriate quarters in the Government. I am confident that in due course those protests will bear fruit.
Paisley Manufacturing Society is losing £14,554; the Northern Co-operative Society, which is in Aberdeen, is losing £140,000, and the S.C.W.S., the wholesale society, will lose £105,000. That is what this tax represents to the Co-operative membership in actual money. These losses have naturally created a feeling of dissatisfaction. Whether or not the dissatisfaction will diminish and be finally removed lies in the future, but every one of us recognises that a Government must have money and the demand presented to the Government for more and more services is one of the basic justifications for the course they have taken. That view has been expressed within the circles to which I have referred.
It is recognised and to some extent now accepted. But co-operative shops and other retailers are disturbed by the inconsistencies in the application of the tax. For instance, co-operative societies sell electrical appliances. So does the nationalised industry, but nationalised industries do not pay Selective Employment Tax on their sales of electrical appliances while co-operative shops and other retailers do. They consider that an injustice. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that when he replies to the debate.
In addition, the Co-operative movement has employees as chemists, pharmacists and opticians in its shops, and it pays tax on those employees. In the private sector, on the other hand, one-man businesses on similar lines are exempt. That is an injustice which has been recognised, and I am sure that in his reply my hon. Friend will have some helpful and hopeful comments to make about such indefensible maltreatments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he is awaiting the Reddaway Report before he reaches a final decision. In the meantime, co-operators, being in good hands, will live in hope and also in assurance.

Mr. Brewis: Mr. Brewis rose—

Mr. Rankin: I do not mind giving way. The trouble today is time, which is the enemy of us all.
As I have emphasised, the reduction which has taken place in co-operative societies' dividends and what that has meant to societies, I should perhaps point out the great part which the dividend has played in the social and economic life of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) referred to the Island of Arran, off the West Coast of Scotland. It would be interesting, in passing, to know how many men and women holding responsible jobs in Scotland, and how many Scottish people in. many parts of the world, were educated on the co-operative dividend. In the younger days of many middle-aged and older people, there was not the State support for education which exists today. I wonder how many family holidays were assisted by the co-operative dividend and how many houses were built with its aid. I wonder about the household furniture, the pianos and other adornments, which, particularly in Scotland, became part and parcel of the home because of the part which the co-operative dividend played in the lives of such people as those of Scotland, who are fundamentally thrifty. I think of the number of last wills and testaments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I remind him that we are basically discussing the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that that is what I have been doing. The effect of the Selective Employment Tax on this form of saving is to deprive the people of Scotland of an aid which was significant to them in many periods of their lives. The hon. Member referred to the Island of Arran, where the Co-operative movement, through the dividend, played a very important part. The Co-operative Wholesale Society went into the island and opened its shops there. It bought the produce of the islanders, paying them for it on the spot and giving them what they had not had before—a money income. Previously they had had an income in food, with no fear of its lack; but they were not employed persons. For the most part they depended for their income on summer visitors. The Co-operative movement rescued the crofter from that position by buying the produce of his land at, his own door.
I shall be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak, but I must emphasise the importance of this type of social income to the people of Scotland and express the hope that my hon. Friend and those in Government with him will bring their promises to maturity. In reply to the protests I have presented one Minister said,
The Budget proposals were an essential element in the Government's overall strategy for achieving a progressive and massive shift of resources from home consumption to the requirements of exports, import replacement and productive investment. The taxation measures designed to bring about a reduction in domestic consumption were widely spread and inevitably involved some increases affecting the services sector. Moreover, the need to switch resources from consumption to export means ensuring not only that the growth of home demand does not impede exports but also that there must be some redeployment of labour to the manufacturing sector".
I ask my hon. Friend in his reply to tell us whether any evidence can be furnished tonight of any reduction in domestic consumption. To what extent have exports improved and how many people formerly in the service sector are now in the manufacturing industries? Surely, in view of the immense technological advances being achieved, it was possible to win increases in industrial output without making the women of Scotland pay for them.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said about the Co-operative movement, and I shall refer in more detail to his speech a little later.
I am sorry that the Minister who opened the debate has had to leave us. I thought that he made the best case that he could for S.E.T., but he marred his speech by saying that Scotland could not be divorced from the position of England on taxation. It is because we hear that sort of statement from British Ministers so often that there have been such a rise in the S.N.P. in Scotland. Of course, the position of Scotland can be divorced from England on taxation. All that is needed is a differential pay-roll tax taking the development areas at one end, and the overheated South-East at the other.
The Minister said that there was overheating in manufacturing industry at the


time the S.E.T. was introduced. I doubt whether that applied to Scotland at all. The real problem in connection with the lack of labour in manufacturing in Scotland is the lack of training facilities, and getting trained labour is much more important for manufacturing than the imposition of S.E.T.
We have been given a figure of 2·2 per cent. for the decline in Scotland of service industries, and we have been told that there has been no decline in the construction industry. No figure was given for the decline in industrial employment, but I believe that the figure for 1966–67 was higher than 2·2 per cent. We have now had two years of S.E.T. and I believe that it has proved ineffective in its operation, inequitable in its incidence, and cumbersome to collect. Scotland has naturally more service industries than has England. Scotland has a much greater need for transport, road construction, and so on because of the greater distance from markets.
Incoming industrialists to Scotland during the last few years have been extremely pleased with the standard of the natural amenities in Scotland, the scenery, and so on, but they have had certain comments to make on the standard of the service industries compared with those in England. One thing which sticks out is the lack of private housing, and in many cases hotels, restaurants, and public houses have not been up to the standard of those in England. This is true also of supermarkets, shops, and garages. All of these are undertakings which are hit by S.E.T.
Perhaps I might consider the effect of this tax on shops. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Govan. There is violent opposition to this tax from the co-ops, and I thought that the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave of the money being taken away from the dividends of the co-operatives was extremely impressive, but he is wrong in thinking that there is any necessary synthesis between the Co-operative movement and the Labour Party. The hon. Gentleman spoke about them living in hope, but let them be in hope of a Conservative Government which will abolish this tax. From the lack of interest taken in this debate by Scottish Labour Members it seems that there is no hope of that relief

coming from a union between the Cooperative movement and the Labour Party. There have seldom been more than five Members on the benches opposite.
This tax is putting up prices on gross turnover by no less than 15 per cent. I wonder how many people, when they go to a supermarket in Scotland and find a long queue at the check out and empty gaps on the shelves, realise that this is due to the labour which has been squeezed out from the distributive trades? Few Members do their own shopping, so they do not realise the effect of this squeeze on shoppers.
About a year ago the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce carried out a survey among 22 of the largest retailers and wholesalers in Scotland, who between them employed no fewer than 19,000 workers. It was found that about 6 per cent. of the employees had been squeezed out by S.E.T. But most of those who were squeezed out were dismissed on account of their age or their disability, and the survey pointed out that these were mostly people who were not fit to take other jobs, particularly in manufacturing. This aspect of the tax is nothing short of inhuman. One of the worst criticisms of it is the way that it incites people to invent dodges. Part-time workers are encouraged to work a whole week in some establishments and then go on to the dole for a week, thus increasing the Government's payment and the unemployment figures. It also tends to replace men with women. Hotels, for example, employ fewer waiters and more waitresses because of the tax. There is a long-range problem in this modern technological age, of finding more employment for men.
But the worst instance is in the construction industry. The extra cost of a 2,000 house will be £90 for the original S.E.T. and, I understand, a further £20 because of this year's Budget. This does not work out mathematically with S.E.T. increasing by 50 per cent. because so many builders have found dodges to get around the tax. For example, if one can isolate the joiner's shop, one can actually get R.E.P. on it. One can make many of one's employees pretend to be self-employed, and thus escape the tax. In industrialised building, for example, if the sections are assembled on the site,


one does have to pay the tax, but if they are assembled in a factory some way off, one gets R.E.P. and is much better off. As a result, for example, Wimpey pays S.E.T. on industrialised building, while Costain does not.
Finally, it is a most cumbersome tax to collect. A total of 478 extra civil servants are employed just paying out the S.E.T. which another Ministry collects.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Could the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a tax in the present range of taxes for which the administrative costs are a lower percentage of the total raised than the figures for S.E.T?

Mr. Brewis: I cannot give one offhand, but a vast number of civil servants are employed on this. It might be a good idea if the Government themselves had to pay S.E.T. on the extra civil servants whom they have been employing lately.
I hope that Professor Reddaway will produce a much better solution. We should have, as I said, a payroll tax. If and when we enter the Common Market, we shall have to change the tax anyway to go over to a value added tax, which is at present operating on the Continent. I am, therefore, delighted that, when the Conservative Party is returned to power, we shall abolish S.E.T.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: There is a tendency, which I find entirely understandable, for the Chamber to empty when Tories start talking about taxation, and particularly when Scottish Tories talk about the S.E.T. It is one of their favourite subjects. It is an occasion for generalised ritual abuse, when all sorts of reasonable people start flogging themselves into a state of spurious indignation. This is a pantomime which has been rehearsed here on many occasions, and I am surprised to realise that it can only have started in May, 1966, when S.E.T. first burst upon the country. One thing which is marginally encouraging is the rather flat and possibly even anticlimactic atmosphere of the House this evening. Perhaps even some of the hard-core Tory agitators on S.E.T. are getting a little discouraged.
It is easy to shrug off this kind of demonstration which the Tory Party has

been mounting for two years now in Scotland, but I would not be prepared to do it. I give them this credit—it has to some extent been successful. There is no doubt that all taxes are unpopular but that the Selective Employment Tax has been unpopular beyond all reasonable expectation.
I cannot help feeling that the dogged campaign of misrepresentation which has gone on for a very long time, and which on one or two important points has still been going on tonight, has contributed to the cumulative great unpopularity of the Measure. The Treasury Minister who opened the debate was right to remind us why we have a Selective Employment Tax. It is not an unpleasant whim made the more unpleasant because various Opposition spokesmen suspect it is a formula foisted on to the Government by, of all things, a foreigner. It is first and foremost a method of raising revenue.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) refer to the expense of collecting it. I and a large number of other people, including The Times, have commented on just how cheap it is to collect. One reason for that is that it uses existing machinery, which may be one of the reasons for some of the anomalies which have been so heavily criticised. As I remember the figures, the first full year produced £190 million and administration cost only £2 million, just over one per cent., which, by current taxation practice, makes it an extremely economical tax. It is fair to say that S.E.T. raises revenue and raises it cheaply.
I agree with the Government spokesman on the Front Bench that it is a sensible and useful way of broadening the basis of the indirect taxation system. Many people will remember the then Chancellor's speech when he introduced the tax in May, 1966. I have just reread it. I was impressed then and I still am impressed by the force of the argument that if it is necessary to raise this money, then one should look at a sector, the service sector, which has been very lightly treated in terms of indirect taxation. Of the £6,000 million on which Purchase Tax and Excise duties are eligible, 40 per cent. goes in this way. Of the £7,000 million spent by the public


on services, only 1 per cent. is claimed by the Exchequer in indirect taxation. If it is accepted that there is a need to raise taxation, and if particularly the Tory Party is so obsessively opposed to the raising of direct taxation, then there is an obvious case for looking at the service industries and deciding to tax them in this way.
It may be that back in May, 1966, there was an argument, although it was not one of which I heard a great deal, that the Chancellor had his sums wrong and we did not need to raise so much money. But when we came to the last Budget and the jacking up of the S.E.T. level, I do not think there was a big quarrel between the Front Benches about the total sum that the Chancellor was taking out of the economy.
This is something that has been said many times in the House, but it is worth emphasising because I do not think the Conservatives have explained to my satisfaction how they get out of the logic of their own arguments. If they are to abolish S.E.T., if they are to increase defence spending or at least slow down the cuts that the present Government have introduced, if we follow the Shadow Chancellor in saying that we should not have indirect taxes which push up industrial costs and if we want him to reduce direct taxation, as the Tories have pledged themselves to do, it is difficult to see how they will reach the global sum that they have agreed is largely right and must be found. In that context there is a clear prima facie case in the total economic situation for supporting the Government in the imposition of some form of Selective Employment Tax.
I agree with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that it would be a sad measure of the inflexibility of the Government's fiscal ideas if they said there cannot be a differential taxation system for England and Scotland. But that is exactly what we have done. He may not like the way in which we have differentiated, but the Minister of State gave figures which prove conclusively that the whole S.E.T.-R.E.P. tax complex has been so heavily weighted in favour of Scotland and in favour of the development areas in general. Even a nationalist striving ultimately for complete political separation might still think there is a

case for Selective Employment Tax suitably varied, for if it is the right prescription for the rest of the United Kingdom it will benefit Scotland in the sense that we will always be dependent economically on an expanding and buoyant English economy. England will always be our major market whether we are within or without the framework of the United Kingdom.
I have always been sceptical about the arguments in relation to the shift of workers from the service to the manufacturing sectors. I know that a large number of people do not share my scepticism. The Chancellor suggested in his last Budget that this had taken place and it was suggested again this evening from the Government Front Bench.
Shortly after the last Budget I remember reading an article in The Times, one sentence of which gives the keynote:
Some evidence now suggests that the tax is achieving its purpose and that a real shake-out of employees in service industries is under way.
The article went on to argue that employment in the service industries was dropping and, though in the manufacturing industries it was dropping faster, this still suggested that for the first time there was some response to direct Government policy and the economic cycle from the employment pattern in the service industries.
I am still sceptical about this. If it is happening, it is happening very slowly. I did not like that argument at the time, and I accept some of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) when he used the White Paper on the Scottish Economy as his text, but I maintain that in terms of the general economic strategy and as a means of raising revenue cheaply and efficiently, there is a lot to be said for the Selective Employment Tax.
The real question is how Scotland comes out of the sums, if it comes out well or badly and how we should after the situation if at all. A rather strange thing, it seems to me, has happened. When Conservatives talk about Scotland and the Selective Employment Tax, they do not mean Scotland at all. They mean the Highlands, the North-East or the Border. We see again and again this obsession which was not evident during their years


in office but which suddenly bulks so large in their minds.
I agree that there are special problems in these areas. If one takes the Standard Industrial Classification categories III to VI—that is, the premium earning categories—it is true that in the North-East of Scotland only 25 per cent. of the employed population are in these industries, and only 10 per cent. in the Highlands. There are parts of Scotland with very real problems. In the same way, it is only 14 per cent. in the South-West Development District of England and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Taking Scotland as a whole, it is not true that Scotland is heavily dependent upon service industries. In fact, our proportion of service to manufacturing industries almost exactly corresponds with that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I was told in answer to a Written Question that I put down on 2nd July that the net yield from the tax-bearing sector after deducting the neutral repayment section, was in Scotland £45 million but that England and Wales contributed £443 million to the Exchequer which is almost exactly what one might expect on a strict per capita basis, emphasising that the break down of manufacturing and service industries is very similar north and south of the Border.
But we get the weighting that I talked about earlier, and it is a massive weighting. I am told that the additional selective employment payment to manufacturers, now only found in the development districts, gives £10 million to Scotland and £15 million to England, and the R.E.P. ploughs into Scotland £40 million and into England £60 million.
If one takes account of the premiums going back to manufacturers and the additional R.E.P. premiums I have just mentioned, the net yield to the Exchequer in England is £368 million. In Scotland, we have a balance—a profit, in fact, of £5 million. There is a massive differential, and it is quite wrong to say that the Selective Employment Tax has been in some way designed uniquely to victimise Scotland.
One could argue with some justification that it may not be the best way of using the money which is ploughed into Scotland. It may be said that it would

be better to double expenditure on roads. It may be argued that the infrastructure is more important than investment grants. There are a number of very far-reaching and important arguments which ought to be examined of this type. But one should never over simplify and merely say that S.E.T. is bad for Scotland. It is there to help Scotland and it does give Scotland a real financial advantage. It may be bad for Scotland in the same sense that growth point policy may be bad for Scotland, or the Tory Front Bench might say that spreading the jam thinly over the whole of Scotland is a mistake for Scotland, but one should not say that S.E.T. is not trying to help and is not making a very significant contribution.
The trouble is not that the Conservative spokesmen on S.E.T. are getting the wrong answers but that they ask basically the wrong questions.

Mr. Higgins: That is what the hon. Gentleman did when he put down his set of Questions. We were told originally that R.E.P. would be self-financing. If that had not been the case his Question would have been right. But as it is financed out of other taxation he must make allowance for the taxation Scotsmen pay to finance the £40 million R.E.P.

Mr. Dewar: I see that, and there may be some validity in the point. It is a nice financial calculation which is beyond me, and I suggest that it is beyond the hon. Gentleman without the aid of the Treasury. But even when one has made every possible allowance, I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, there is a very heavy favourable weighting in the system.
I said that there are areas in England as well as in Scotland where we are at a very considerable disadvantage. I want to say a word about this, and refer particularly to the tourist industry in my part of the country. It is one of the most distressing and aggravating features of the Labour Government that they often manage to get the worst of every world. It is incredible when one looks at the number of sizeable concessions that they have made to various interest groups in Scotland and other parts which have boomeranged upon them so that they have ended more unpopular than they were to begin with. I hope that my right


hon. Friends do not think I am too uncharitable, but I think that this is a prime example of it.
We had a massive concession originally. The British Hotel and Travel Association said that Schedule 17 would have exempted one hotel in four in Britain, and the Scottish figures undoubtedly would have been higher. But we got no credit and were driven to make changes which I believe are considerable improvements, but which ought to have been made at the beginning.
We do not have an anti-tourist Government or Administration. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire quoted the recent Report of the Scottish Tourist Board. He will have noted that the new investment grant scheme which was announced in a recent White Paper has been warmly welcomed by the Board, which has described this decision as
the most encouraging in at least 20 years.
There is, I am convinced, a very good appreciation of the importance of the tourist industry. It is sad that we should have got all the abuse and opposition and partly because it was so badly presented, without a sufficiently decisive and final form.
The worst thing from my point of view is that anomalies still exist. I recognise that there is an enormous advantage in administrative terms in neat lines. At the moment cities are excluded and the rural areas are not. Here is a nice hard and fast situation which everyone can appreciate. But originally Schedule 17 was drawn out in hard and fast lines also. There was the great principle that one could not sub-divide employment exchange areas, that it was not administratively possible and that it offended against the good canons of orthodox administration. But ultimately the Government decided that they could take this step, and they have sub-divided the areas and drawn much more sensible lines in terms of their original definition of "rural areas".
I should like to see them go a little further and look flexibly at the situation in other individual parts of Scotland and even in Scottish cities. With regard to Aberdeen, I now probably understand and appreciate, if I may make an admission, the very real feeling of someone

who is placed just outside a development district—Edinburgh, say—looking in.
The situation developing in Aberdeen in the tourist industry has brought home to me the strength of feeling that this kind of position inevitably generates. Our tourist industry is immensely important. Of all Scottish cities, Aberdeen is the most heavily dependent on it. Edinburgh is, of course, a great centre, but of a different kind. It has other justifications and existences outside tourism. We are mainly a service centre for an agricultural hinterland. Aberdeen has but one other major industry—fishing—and that has an uncertain future and cannot be described as an obvious growth industry.
While I accept that this is purely special pleading, I hope that, at some point, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to look again at the boundaries he has drawn because otherwise there will be real hardship. The tourist industry in Aberdeen is going through a difficult transitional phase, since traditional trade and traffic patterns—for example, the Glasgow Fair—are declining. We are trying to adjust ourselves to the new touring traffic. There may well be real hardship among smaller hoteliers in my area if the Government are not prepared to look at this matter again.
The Motion on the Order Paper is extremely difficult to comprehend. The Opposition are deploring the effect of the Selective Employment Tax upon the Scottish economy. I suppose it depends on what one's criteria are for judging the situation. But in almost every field and by almost every standard the Government have done extremely well in the last few years. Public expenditure in 1962–63 was £240 million. In 1966–67 it was going well above the £400 million mark. In every department of public spending, such as roads and housing, the figure is up, with completions at a record level.
Admittedly, unemployment is still 150 per cent. of the United Kingdom level but even in my short career I can remember the days when it was commonplace and accepted that the Scottish figure should be above the 200 per cent. mark in relation to the United Kingdom total. Scotland was always, but no longer is, the Cinderella of the regions—with one of the worst ratios in relation to the rest


of the country. I believe the dreary certainty of depression in the Scottish economy is no more. We do not now have to look forward to large unemployment and low investment.
One of the sadnesses and paradoxes is that an Administration which has presided over the biggest ever public expenditure boom in Scotland has still ended up as electorally unpopular, at least temporarily. I hope, as the results become more apparent to the electorate, this attitude will change, but it is an ironic and strange situation.
Even if we take the case of the shops —and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has been reading public notices in the Glasgow Herald—there has been a real consumer boom in Scotland. I will quote a witness which is not often quoted on the Labour side—the annual reports of the House of Fraser. The last annual report produced record figures. The House of Fraser did well, too, in 1966–67, despite the fact that it had five months S.E.T. to pay. It did well specifically because the Scottish and northern stores had been particularly prosperous. The financial editor of The Times remarked that Scotland had come to the aid of Fraser and added that it looked as if a mass exodus to the North was called for. It was underlined that the northern stores had done particularly well. It may be that there are difficulties in the centres of certain cities and it may be that experiments with sites away from city centre complexes will have to be made, as the House of Fraser itself is making them.
All in all, the Conservative case does not hold up. The Opposition have proved that they do not like the S.E.T. and they are joined in that view by many people in Scotland. I can certainly accept that the tax needs further refinement and that it can be improved and changed, but I am not prepared to give my vote tonight to a sweeping condemnation or to countenance such an attack. This kind of over-simplification, this kind of denial of the facts, this attempt which in financial terms is important to hide the real effort being made to help the Scottish economy, can only encourage the disgruntled air which is abroad in Scotland, and in doing that we benefit and help no one.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I should love to tangle with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), because he has the marvellous flair of the born orator of generalising an argument to such an extent that at any given moment one is very impressed with what he says, although, when one tries to string it together as a coherent pattern of argument, it seems to fall down. However, I agree with him that this has not been exactly a firecracker of a debate.
At this time of the evening, the House is usually fairly crowded, but tonight only a very few hon. Members are present. The reason is probably simply that it is almost impossible to have a debate of this sort without a great deal of repetition, because all the ground has already been covered many times. I am reminded of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), who related to me the other day how he had been addressing a public meeting at which there were many Conservatives. In a tempting mood, which is dangerous on any occasion, he asked whether there was any Conservative present who could say what constructive proposals his party had put forward while in opposition. One quavering hand went up and a voice said, "We would abolish Selective Employment Tax". It is all very fine and dandy, but, although I go along with many of the strictures made in the debate, I would have preferred a debate on the alternatives which, as the Minister of State rightly said, one has to discuss if one engages in negative criticism. I do not propose to add much by way of stricture, not because I oppose the tax less, but because it has already been effectively said by others.
Despite the regional employment premium—and I fully appreciated the point which the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) neatly inserted into the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—Selective Employment Tax has not encouraged the development of those parts of the United Kingdom which most need development. The Midlands flourish while Scotland, like Northern Ireland and the South-West—for this does not apply only to Scotland—suffer by comparison.
I quote an interesting regional analysis made by two gentlemen of the teaching staff of London University, Mr. Rawstron and Mr. Lewis. Taking the index of tax payments by service industries with the United Kingdom as 100, they say that Scotland is almost the same, at 101, whereas in the Midlands the Yorkshire and Humberside area is 85, the East Midlands, 82, and the West Midlands, 75. On the other side of the picture, the index of premium receipts by manufacturers, with the United Kingdom average as 100, in Scotland is 90·1, while in the West Midlands it is 140·1. In other words, in the area which requires help least, the greatest help is given.
Secondly, within Scotland itself the tax has a retarding effect on the development of those parts of Scotland which most need development—this is an extension of the same argument. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has quoted figures of money going out of the Highlands area, and I do not want to repeat that argument. The original estimate was produced by a Question asked by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) a long time ago and it was between £2½ million and £3 million. This seems to be contradictory. It is also true to a certain extent of the South-West and the Borders.
Although I am not a taxation expert —and I can easily put my hand on my heart to say that—I have always believed that at least an attempt should be made not to make taxation anomalous, not to make it unfair as between one lot and another, and there is no doubt that this tax is grossly anomalous in many ways. One could quote many examples, but I shall quote only one. We welcome the concessions for hotels in development areas, but what is the logic of saying, for example, that the Station Hotel m Inverness, which is a splendid hotel, is to get the rebate, and a wee restaurant next door which is doing the same job shall not get anything? This is anomalous, and makes people think that the tax is unreasonable. Most people think that all tax is unreasonable, but if they get a grudge against taxation that is bad.
The Minister fairly asked what one can do instead. If there is one good thing that S.E.T. has done for us it is probably

that in future we shall be forced to develop more and better co-ordinating machinery for assessing the regional and local effects of any change. Already there has been much comment that the tax has changed a great deal since it came into existence. I do not think that it is a good way of legislating, to quote the splendid and very appropriate words of one hon. Member, to be driven in disorganised fashion to make improvements. But I very much accept the hon. Gentleman's other point that we have not yet developed the right kind of machinery', and in many ways it ill behoves the Conservative Party to criticise the Government on that basis. The Government have had very little time to develop it.
The Minister said that there was no really flexible alternative to S.E.T., and he spoke rather disparagingly about the concept of the payroll tax, which the Liberals have advocated for some time and of which there has been considerable experience on the Continent. I believe that it is more flexible than the S.E.T. It is not necessarily involved in the rather artificial distinction between manufacturing and service. It can be varied according to employment; to assist export industries, despite G.A.T.T.; and it can be remitted for charities, part-time workers, the disabled and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said in June, 1966:
A varied tax could be introduced immediately in the following terms to raise the £240 million per year which the Chief Secretary is so anxious to acquire. First, the West Midlands and the South-East would pay 7s. per employee per week. Secondly, Yorkshire, Humberside, the North-West, the East Midlands and East Anglia would pay 3s. per employee per week. Thirdly, the Northern Region, in terms of the Department of Economic Affairs, the South West, all Scotland and all Wales would pay no tax.
The rates would be 7s. 3d. and no shillings, and it would realise precisely the £240 million which the Chancellor is so anxious to get with none of the troubles, arguments and special inquiries about who is to count because of these arrangements in industry …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1012–13.]
Do we want regional dispersal or not? I admit that it would be very sweeping.
Finally, and briefly, because I am very conscious of the pressure of time, I do not think that I have ever really accepted, though I remember often arguing


about it with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), for example, when he was Minister of State, the distinction between service and manufacturing, and what it effectively means. It is very artificial, and I am not at all satisfied that it is a good way of encouraging manufacturing industry to pay extra premiums according to the number of people it employs. We should be much more concerned with the more efficient deployment of manpower than anything else.
There has not been much reference to a value-added tax in the debate, and it is rather late to start developing that theme. The evidence shows that it is a tax against inefficiency, and, indeed, in the long term, would be better than a payroll tax and would replace it.
I said that I thought the Motion was negative, but it is often true that negative things require to be said many times on some occasions.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I apologise for not having heard all the debate, but we have heard about this subject endlessly since the introduction of Selective Employment Tax. Hon. Members from Scottish constituencies have been particularly virile in their attacks on the Government on this matter. Although I have not heard all that has been said this evening, I am sure that I have heard it on other occasions. It is very unlikely that anything new has been said tonight.
I remember, when we were in opposition, the initial payroll tax being suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). At that time we had criticism about its implications, but the scheme did not go ahead. When we think in terms of the Selective Employment Tax that we now have and why it was introduced in its present form, we recall that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer candidly stated that this was a means of raising revenue. My right hon. Friend said that if it were not done this way it would have to be done another way.
Everyone is crying out for more and more public spending, even hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet at the same time they cry out against it. But this was a means

of raising revenue. The choice was between more direct taxation—and we have been told again and again that we have virtually reached the limit in terms of direct taxation so we could not raise more revenue there—and indirect taxation. The area for an extension of indirect taxation was pretty limited. It is not perhaps appreciated by many people that one great area that remains for an extension of indirect taxation, unlike most other countries, concerns food. We subsidise food rather than tax it, apart from "sweeties", ice cream and commodities of that kind. If one were to think in terms of the easiest way to raise money, this undoubtedly would be the easy way to go about it. But this was something alien to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he pointed to services which at that time were not taxed. For example, if a man goes into a barber's shop and has a haircut, it is difficult to argue why he should not pay a tax related to the service of having his hair cut, whereas if he buys a razor or razor blades he pays a tax.
It was appreciated at the time that imposing this tax might, for example, injure certain sections of our industry. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind our export trade. Great emphasis was placed on the selective character of the tax. My right hon. Friend said that he wanted to raise a large amount of revenue, but in a manner which would be least injurious to our export trade. He argued that the manufacturing industries were more important for exports than any other. He did not say that the services of the tourist industry or the hotels were not important, but that they were trying to be selective and to do least harm to the export trade and that to single out manufacturing industry for a repayment with a premium was one way of doing so.
It is enormously difficult to produce a tax of this kind without anomalies. If the Government deserve blame at all, it is, perhaps, because they have been too concerned to meet objections and arguments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have cried out about how the hotels, particularly in Scotland, were being injured —although the trade has been rising over this period—almost as though there were no other part of the United Kingdom than Scotland. I sometimes wonder


where this place Scotland is. How important it is as a part of the United Kingdom! We hear so much about it.
Then, a scheme was brought forward to help the hotels and immediately there was a greater outcry than ever because some were being helped and not others. If I were being critical, I might say that it would be better not to bother about the hotels and to get "all your thanks in the one dish". The Government have had no thanks at all for what they have been doing.
The S.E.T. is only one aspect of a selective tax system. I and many of my hon. Friends used to argue in Opposition for some modification of taxation to help the development areas, and not just Scotland. We had no answer; we were not taxation experts and did not have the Liberals behind us to tell us what to do, but we urged some selectivity in taxation to help these areas. And now we have it. This is of far more help than I ever dreamed. In my wildest imaginings, I never dreamed that there could be so much discrimination in a taxation system in favour of the development areas as there is in the S.E.T. and the R.E.P.
My constituency would have lost an important factory but for the regional employment premium and the money which goes back to manufacturing industries in our areas. Although I have nothing against the Highlands of Scotland—it is a very nice place to visit occasionally— that is not where the people of Scotland are to be found. They are in the industrial areas, and Scotland is a highly industrialised country. In this sense, Scotland reaps great benefit from the R.E.P.—

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn): Is the hon. Gentleman discounting and writing off all the North of Scotland?

Mr. Lawson: No, since my hon. Friends and I have been pressing for efforts to develop Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is present, piloted through the Bill which brought into being the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has been doing much more for Scotland than has been done for a very long time. I would say to the hon.

Gentleman who represents the lairds and gentry that if Scotland has suffered, the Highlands particularly, it is because of the absent gentry, the folk who have turned the Highlands into a deer forest. They are the people who depopulated Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman need not laugh. My ancestors were just as involved as ever were his, but that is not what I am arguing about.

Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West): I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman's argument he is now putting forward, but I thought I heard him say a little earlier that people in the North and in the Highlands are people. Where do people start to be people?

Mr. Lawson: It is people we want to see. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), although he has left the Chamber now, wants to see in his area more than tourism and wants to see industry there. So do I. Measures of this kind are measures which will develop our country. By all means let us have some holiday folk and tourism, but let us have industry, and it is this type of measure which will help Scotland, not the greeting and girning we get from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who spoke from our Front Bench that he has the full support of his Scottish colleagues.
We have had two subjects debated today. When we on this side were the Opposition we always put aside two Supply days for Scotland and we always, among other things, debated industry and employment in Scotland. We have not had a debate on that subject this Session. Why? Instead we get a niggling little subject like this Selective Employment Tax—not even as it affects the United Kingdom, but as it affects Scotland. This is the kind of thing which discredits Scotland. I should like to see hon. Gentlemen opposite becoming a little bigger in their approach to matters of this kind.
Meantime, this is something about which my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench need not worry. My only fear is that in trying to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite they may have gone too far.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East): After due reflection I do not think I will follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I hope he will excuse me. He came to the aid of his party in noble fashion.
I have detected during the debate a certain amount of complaint from him and from other hon. Gentlemen opposite at the fact that we should raise this matter again. They say, quite fairly, that this matter has been discussed many times already. That is absolutely true. What I think they fail to recognise is that a Government who think even the act of listening is granting a concession may have to be told 20 times even before they really begin to absorb the fact that a solid, serious case is being presented to which they should pay the most urgent attention. It is not our fault we have to raise the matter again; it is the fault of the Government.
Of course, all taxation is indefensible, considered in isolation. It becomes only even remotely bearable when we consider what can be achieved with the money which is raised by the taxation. In this case the Government produced a lot of talk about overheating of the economy, translation of resources, raising revenue, a lot of talk which does not mean much to anybody but themselves— and, as the carrot at the end of the stick, the R.E.P., the regional employment premium.
I am opposed to the whole of the Selective Employment Tax, R.E.P. and all, and I am concerned that manufacturers in Scotland find in the regional employment premium the sort of artificial carrot which may have little relation to the reality of their economic circumstances and which may place them in very real difficulties as and when it is removed. In my view the whole concept of the Selective Employment Tax is arrant nonsense, and even if the Government can afford to be led up the garden path the ordinary people cannot. We will therefore abolish the tax as and when we get the chance.
"But," say hon. Members opposite, "what taxation will you raise instead?" "Nothing," we say. "Ah," they say with a great gleam, "what then will you cut?" "Nothing," we will say, and the last

glimmer of interest disappears. They really cannot imagine that anyone else can run the country's affairs better than they can.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that he could not understand why this tax was so particularly unpopular. I should like quite briefly to enlighten him, and as he left the Chamber some time ago I have no doubt that he will read my speech. The Selective Employment Tax was introduced shortly after an election when our people were still basking in the euphoria of statements by the newly-elected Government that no further increases in taxation were necessary.
That was the first point. The next is the basic discrimination between the service industries and the manufacturing industries which many of our people felt to be highly insulting, apart from being extremely unfair in its effects on the economic structure of their lives. There are many smaller examples that could be given, but the discrimination between hotels and restaurants is that which has come out most often and most obviously in this debate.
Then there was the way in which the whole business was handled. First, we had agriculture. After a great struggle it was decided that those in agriculture could have the money back: "Let's find a few more civil servants to take the money in and more of them to pay it back." Then there was fish processing, then bakehouses. The latest event in this chronicle of decision, reconsideration, changes of mind and panic all round is the exemption of various hotels in Scotland from the Selective Employment Tax. If the Government are to handle their taxation affairs in this way they cannot tackle any potential exporters, or anyone else, about their way of handling their affairs. That is the reason for the unpopularity of this tax.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill): We now know from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) the Opposition's programme for the next election. The two answers he gave on behalf of his party were in the negative—"nothing", "nothing"—and I expect that that will be the result of any policies that the


Opposition have to offer in the next election.
The debate has centred round the principle of the Selective Employment Tax, and it seems that some hon. Members opposite did not listen to what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, was saying. He pointed out that nationally the S.E.T. has yielded much more than was anticipated in the Budget in 1966 when the tax was introduced, but that Scotland had benefited to the extent of £5 million net. I should have thought that that was something of which Scottish hon. Members would be appreciative, in the sense, particularly, that along with the other statements made, it shows that out of these moneys which are coming in, the big industrial change which the Government are trying to bring about in the development areas and in Scotland is succeeding—too slowly for some, perhaps, but at least the results are coming through. Hon. Members opposite ought to think of the other side of the coin. They forget the new growth industries which are coming to Scotland in the East, particularly the biggest electronics complex in the world outside the United States. This is something we ought to be proud of.
Is it not also a fact that only recently in a Press statement in the very area which so many hon. Members opposite represent, the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board was reported as saying that for the first time in 100 years depopulation in the Highlands had been brought to a standstill and forecast that in three or four years the population in the Highlands would increase? Because of the activities of such agencies as the Highlands and Islands Development Board, assisted by income from the Selective Employment Tax and resources provided by the Government, Scotland's fortunes are on the turn. Hon Members opposite would do better in the present state of mind in Scotland if instead of always crying "Woe, woe"—

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll): For three years on every single thing that the Government have done for the Highlands, or any other part of Scotland, I have congratulated them. For the two and half years before that, whatever was done for Scotland—although the hon. Member

for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) may have been an exception—his hon. Friends did exactly the opposite.

Mr. Hannan: I should love to follow that point. There has not been any exception of myself. The point we made in those days of opposition was that the Government were not using the opportunities laid before them to do precisely that which the present Government are now doing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in certain circumstances in regard to the pulp mill and the rest, hon. Members opposite were prepared to hand out public money for private enterprise, but the present Government are ensuring that the money is used in the proper way.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) may recall that a number of his hon. Friends and I attended a meeting at the pulp mill at which I had much to say in support of what the Government were doing when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Hannan: I recognise that I am infringing the arrangements made through the usual channels. I have no wish to pursue the matter, much as I should like to, but I ask hon. Members of the Opposition to recognise in the present climate the result of some of the actions they are pursuing.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing): It is very appropriate indeed that we should be debating this subject this evening. No one can deny that the debate has been lively and controversial. It is particularly appropriate to have the time of this Supply day to debate this subject because the House was deprived of any opportunity of debating the Selective Employment Tax when we were concerned with the Finance Bill, either on recommittal or Report. Therefore, because the whole basis of Supply days is that taxation should not take place without grievances being redressed, it is right and proper that the Opposition should be giving time to debate this very important subject. We can only deplore that the Government, by taking the Finance Bill's Committee stage in Standing Committee and by the imposition of the Guillotine, did not give us the opportunity to do so in Government time. We regard both the


Selective Employment Tax and, in particular, its effect on Scotland as very important.
Much reference has been made to Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill, which was not debated at all during the proceedings on that Bill and which had not been discussed until we reached this debate this evening. The general condemnation of S.E.T. was summed up in the C.B.I.'s reference to that tax this year in its report on the Budget:
S.E.T. has proved ineffective in its operation, inequitable in its incidence and cumbersome to collect. As an instrument to encourage productive effort by penalising the allegedly less productive use of manpower, it has been a failure, and it has made the tax system more arbitrary by substantially enlarging the area of Ministerial discretion.
This tax is universally condemned, and I believe for very good reasons. Both sides of the House say that they recognise the need to adopt a policy towards those regions which suffer normally from high levels of unemployment which will increase employment there and thus enable us to Operate the entire economy at a higher level, because those areas suffer very much in times of depressed demand and do not become as prosperous as they might when demand is increased.
It is worth referring to the analysis carried out by the National Institute's Economic Review for May, 1966, at the time that S.E.T. was introduced. It made a serious of calculations designed to show a comparison between S.E.T. and a straight poll tax which did not differentiate in the way in which S.E.T. differentiates. It transpired from these calculations that the area which gained most was the West Midlands with a coefficient of plus 14·7 per cent. Areas in the North West of England had a coefficient of plus 8·3 per cent. and the North of England of plus 07 per cent. But a Scotland it was minus 22 per cent. It was clear at that time that the tax penalised Scotland. It continues to do so— indeed, it penalises Scotland even more following the increase of S.E.T. by 50 per cent. in the last Budget.
I want to take up a point mentioned by the Minister of State in his opening speech and mentioned, too, by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). I refer to the assertion that the tax somehow benefits Scotland to the extent of £5 million per annum.

The Minister based his assertion on a Question put down by his hon. Friend suggesting that the net yield of the tax-bearing sector of the economy through S.E.T. was £45 million. The premiums paid out were £10 million and the regional employment premiums were £40 million. I see that the Minister nods his head. Had he been here when his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made that point, he would know that I then intervened and pointed out that the calculation was incomplete. The calculation would have been valid had the regional employment premium proved self-financing as the Government said it would. In fact it has not; the regional employment premium is costing us about £100 million a year, which is paid out of taxation, much of it imposed on Scotland. That is in addition to the calculations made in the Answer. It is, therefore, not true that the net advantage of the tax to Scotland is £5 million. In fact it has a very adverse effect on the Scottish economy.
Reference has been made to the manufacturing premium and to the service industries, and I want to speak briefly about both subjects. Dealing, first, with the manufacturing premium, we do not believe that the right approach to the problem is to give a hand-out to manufacturing industry. Many of my hon. Friends have indicated that the right answer is a reduction in direct taxation rather than a system of collecting taxation and then redistributing it in the form of hand-outs in whichever way the man in Whitehall thinks right. Surely the right approach is to try to give incentives to people to make profits and not to impose further taxation on them. This is what the giving of the premium does, because it adds to the amount of revenue which needs to be raised otherwise.
In the short time available I want to make one or two points about the hotel industry because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F- Maclean) said during the Third Reading debate on the Finance Bill— though he got no reply from the Minister on that occasion—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said this evening, the tax as it now stands discriminates in a quite absurd way between different areas of


Scotland. We believe that it ought to be abolished for the entire hotel industry, but to discriminate between one area and another across arbitrary lines is quite absurd.
I hope that the Minister will answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) about whether, even after all the adjustments which were made in the Budget, the net effect of the Budget is to increase the revenue raised from hotels in Scotland by £150,000 in a full year. We believe that the hotel industry is vital for exports or, more accurately, for earnings from abroad, because it makes a considerable contribution to our balance of payments.
It is no use the Minister of State, Treasury, as he did in his opening speech, quoting lots of figures about visible earnings because, as he knows, this country depends very largely at the margin for its invisible earnings to get us into a balance of payments surplus. Therefore the rôle played by the hotel industry, not only in this or that employment area in Scotland, but also in those areas of Scotland which do not get the S.E.T. refund, is very important. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) seemed to be under the impression that hotels get the premium. All that is happening under the so-called concession is that some hotels in Scotland will not have the tax increased.
I do not want to cover the general case against S.E.T. as the Minister of State did in his opening speech, but I feel bound to say that though he said he was going to give the figures for Scotland which he gave for the United Kingdom as a whole, he did not do so, and we shall be interested to know what are the appropriate figures which he did not quote. If they are not available, this surely is significant, because the statistics on Scotland as we now have them are inadequate.
I turn, now, to the question of the anomalies. It is true that all the anomalies which exist in the country as a whole exist also in Scotland in the S.E.T. context. But I believe that there are many others which exist only in Scotland. I shall mention only one or two. They all arise from the absurd proposi-

tion in the S.E.T. that somehow the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that it is possible to get away from arbitrary decisions if one does that. I do not believe that that is so, and I want to quote one case, the absurd division between saying whether a thing is or is not a service industry. There is the celebrated case of Mr. McTavish's kitchen in Oban. As is well known, because one of the restaurants in that area, McTavish as against Archibald, is said to be a manufacturing industry while the other is a service industry, one of these restaurants pays the tax, and the other does not. As a result there are considerable variations in the prices which these establishments can charge. This is grossly unfair, and is typical of the difficulties which arise when one tries to draw the line between one establishment and another. The difficulty was brought out—and I am sorry that I do not have more time to expand it—very clearly in one of the Sunday newspapers a short time ago.
This tax creates anomaly after anomaly, and, as in the United Kingdom, it is particularly unfair on the low-paid workers. As in the United Kingdom, it has an adverse effect on nursing homes and hospitals outside the National Health Service, though these make an important contribution. As in the United Kingdom, it is unfair on the construction industry, on pensioners, and on the Co-ops, as was mentioned by one hon. Gentleman opposite. Here again we have good reason for believing that this tax ought to be abolished.
We have heard a great deal about the Reddaway Report. It would be a mistake for hon. Members, on either side, to have too great hopes of the Reddaway Report, because its terms of reference are narrowly drawn. It is concerned only with the effect of the S.E.T. on prices, margins and productivity in industry on which the tax falls as a net burden, not the other industries which may in one way or another be affected by it.
We are, therefore, firmly convinced that this tax is adverse for the economy. It is not that the tax was specifically designed to penalise Scotland—we do not think that, as some hon. Members opposite have suggested. We believe that its effect has been to penalise Scotland in particular because Scotland depends so


much on the hotel and tourist industry and for the other reasons which have been mentioned during the debate.
There is no point in refining or trying to improve this tax. The fact is that it has an effect on the country as a whole which is adverse and on Scotland in particular which is adverse. The only answer is to do as we on this side are pledged to do: to abolish it at the earliest possible moment.

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am disappointed with the contribution by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), because I thought that he would give us in more official terms the kind of arguments that we had gracefully and effectively from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). I know that the swashbuckling efforts of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) do not reflect the true spirit of the Tory Party in this regard.
The hon. Member for Galloway argued a case for a payroll tax. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who opened the debate, was at one time a Whip of the Tory Party when on the Floor of the House they first suggested a payroll tax. Admittedly, they did not proceed with it. The opposition to an all-round payroll tax was far too heavy even for them, with the hon. Member whipping effectively as he did, to sustain for some time. I accept the compliment, if it is the case, that the Opposition at that time drove the Government of the day not to carry on with their foolishness. This is to our credit and I accept the compliment.
Some hon. Members among the party opposite certainly dissented from an all-round payroll tax. Certainly, the so-called peripheral areas—although I resent the word "peripheral"—such as the North-East did not like the suggestion of a payroll tax. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston)—I am surprised that he is in such bad company tonight—did not come down in favour of a payroll tax but dignified it with the wording "differential payroll tax ". I am sorry that I was not present to hear him utter those disgraceful words.
If a differential payroll tax were to be applied, it should be noted how expensive

it would be and what anomalies there would be in its application. I understand that the party opposite are thinking about replacing S.E.T. with some other tax-not, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East said was their policy, replacing it with nothing, but replacing it with something. No party could possibly seek to replace the revenue yielded by S.E.T. with nothing. Hon. Members opposite are deceiving themselves and the electorate if they pretend that. I know that the more responsible among them do not believe it.
Therefore, the choice, I understand— the hon. Member for Galloway mentioned the two tonight—is between a differential payroll tax or an added-value tax such as is applied in the Common Market countries. I am disappointed with the hon. Member for Worthing for not telling us which it is to be and for not telling us of all the anomalies that its application would involve; they may be less or they may be more than are thrown up by the operation of the S.E.T. in this country and in Scotland in particular.
The hon. Member for Worthing, as an ex-professor of economics—how many professors there are on the benches opposite, I do not know—also disappointed me in not appreciating the distinction between the argument of the economists and the argument of the financiers in relation to the self-financing rôle of the Selective Employment Tax with the regional employment premium.
I ask the hon. Member for Worthing to note that the quotation which he gave from the National Institute Economic Review Bulletin was written before the operation of the R.E.P. If he does his calculation again, he will appreciate, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury argued successfully tonight, that Scotland comes out of S.E.T. and R.E.P. with a bonus. Therefore, he cannot maintain that this does harm to Scotland. That is why I congratulate him on this, for he is circumspect in this regard, that he did not devalue hyperbole by using the debating language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire. He described it as rather important. He did not describe it as disgraceful, outrageous and wretched.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this. I realise that


the figures I acquired from the National Institute are before R.E.P., but I answer this point, as I did in the intervention earlier, by saying that if one is to allow for the cost of S.E.T. and R.E.P., allowance must be made for the fact that this is not the distinction between financial and economic. The Government said that R.E.P. would be self-financing. It is quite clear now that it is not being so, as can be seen by examining the accounts and the tax revenue for Scotland. Allowance must be made for the burden on Scotland as a whole.

Dr. Mabon: Time does not allow me to pursue this. If we were to divert the £40 million without the self-financing procedure of S.E.T. and R.E.P. to extra expenditure on roads or some other infrastructure expenditure, that would be an additional demand on resources. It would thus involve raising direct taxation, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said we ought not to do. We ought to seek by different ways to achieve what we are trying to achieve in manufacturing industry.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) is on record—and I take it that this vote tonight is also on record—as being in opposition to R.E.P. as well as S.E.T. This is fundamental to our argument.
Public investment in Scotland is proportionately substantially higher than it is in England, and the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will confirm this. He has the figures, and, as a good Scotsman should be putting it about widely that public investment on roads and housing is, quite properly, higher in proportion in Scotland than it is in England. These are the circumstances in which we are having this debate on the effects of S.E.T.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway tried to argue a point here about the construction industry, but the construction industry is being helped by having the stimulation of industrialisation. It is one of the industries which has been growing under the Government and in 1967 it achieved the highest figures in Scotland in the history of house building, and a record year in 1968 is still to come. While I accept that the cost of housing

in Scotland is appreciably higher than the cost of housing in England, his party did nothing about it. We at least have asked for a full investigation and the real breakdown not of the additional £90 attributable to S.E.T. but of the £400 to £500 that represents the difference in the cost of construction.
May I now turn to points raised tonight in relation to Edinburgh and hotels. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) emphasised that present in the House tonight are hon. Members from the North-East, Tayside and so on, but not from the central belt. Why? Because, as the hon. Gentleman readily confessed when he congratulated us on giving the concession—and I am grateful for that part of his speech—the central belt is benefiting from S.E.T. and R.E.P. But four-fifths of us live in the central belt and, while I do not take the view that the other one-fifth should be neglected, it would be no exaggeration to say that the central belt balances out any disadvantages that there may be in the Highlands. The figure on loans and grants to industry in the Highlands to June 1968 stands at £3·2 million. He cannot possibly argue a case that this is to the detriment of the Highlands, when all this investment is going to the Highlands alongside the S.E.T. and R.E.P.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) for quoting page 4 of the Report of the Scottish Tourist Board. We are told by the hon. Gentleman opposite and by the hon. Member for Worthing that the hotel industry is in chaos in Scotland, and that the service industries are collapsing. In a reference to the White Paper on hotel development incentives which has recently been published by the President of the Board of Trade we find this courteous compliment from the Scottish Tourist Board in its report for 1967–68:
The decision of the present Government, announced prior to publication of this Report, to stimulate the modernisation of the industry by providing incentive grants for a period of four years from March 1968 to encourage the expansion of existing hotels and the construction of new ones to meet present and potential demand, is warmly welcomed by the Board. This decision, the most encouraging in at least 20 year …".
That is one in the eye for the 13 years under right hon. and hon. Gentlemen


opposite. [Interruption.] This Government's policies, for instance the commissioning of the Edinburgh Accommodation Survey, will be of advantage to Edinburgh as such. In addition, the Hunt Committee will be considering the position of Edinburgh in relation to development area status.

Mr. George Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman not to refer to S.E.T. in his speech, which is what the debate is about?

Dr. Mabon: I am only sorry that we do not have more time at our disposal; otherwise I would be glad to deal with the hon. Gentleman's interruptions. We have been denied a debate on an important matter by having spent the greater part of the day debating something much less significant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that Scotland will note that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think a regiment more important than thousands of jobs in Scotland.
In the three years in which we have been in power, we have provided 22 per cent. more jobs than right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did. That is a direct result of R.E.P. and the other financial incentives adopted by the Government.
Taking the three years referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and giving him the whole of 1964, the number of jobs projected under his fiscal policies from 1962 to was 40,000. Taking the three years for which we have been responsible, to 1967, 63,000 jobs are projected. There has been a 50 per cent. Increase in the number of jobs, in other words. It cannot follow from that that S.E.T. is ruinous and that R.E.P. is damaging Scotland's economy. It is rubbish to suggest that it can.

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not allowed a full debate on this subject. They want only to be abusive, and so obscure the main argument. We want to provide the best possible form of fiscal instrument to attract development and industry in Scotland.

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I made a very good speech on the subject. The hon. Gentleman has said that he would deal with it. He has not mentioned it.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman does me a grave discourtesy. All the references that I made to the Edinburgh Accommodation Survey and the Hunt Committee and so on were made in 90 seconds flat, and this was done for his benefit. I would have been delighted to have gone further into the subject had time allowed.
This debate has boomeranged on the Opposition. The setting of the various figures one against the other has shown a net gain for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Worthing might have been in a better position if he had been debating England or the South-East. He might have had a case then. But the present Government are dedicated to regional policies to try and help Scotland, Wales, the North-East, Northern Ireland and the south-west of England and, at the same time, to ask the Midlands, the South-East and other prosperous parts of the country to help us in that development. It is in character for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to reverse that policy, as they did over 13 years.

Question put:—
That this House deplores the effects of the Selective Employment Tax on industry and employment in Scotland.

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 295.

Division No. 280.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Astor, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bryan, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Black, Sir Cyril
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Buck, Antony (Colchester)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bullus, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Carlisle, Mark


Bell, Ronald
Brewis, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cary, Sir Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bromtey-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Channon, H. P. G.




Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bornier


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Francis


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Emory, Peter
LIoyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Micheal(Sc'bgh &amp; whitby)


Errington, Sir Eric
LIoyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Loveys, W. H.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Flectcher-Cooke, Charles
Mcadden, Sir Stephen
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Forstescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Foster, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alsdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Stoddart, Anthony


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley
Summer, Sir Spencer


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Macmillian, Maurice (Frnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Marples, Rt. Hn. Reginald



Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten NeiI
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Teeling, Sir William


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thorpe, Rt Hn. Jeremy


Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gurden, Harold
Monro Hector
Waddington, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walls, Patrich


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walters, Dennis


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame lrene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Well, John (Maidtone)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Williams Donad (Dudley)




Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geofferey (Turto)


Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John
w instansley, Dr. M. P.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley
wolrige Gordon Patrick


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
woodnutt, Mark


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
worslev, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wylie, N. R.


Hill, J. E. B.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
younger, Hn. George


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian
Mr. Jasper More.


Hornby, Richard
Peyton, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Albu, Austen
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bidwell, Sydney


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.


Alldritt, Walter
Barnes, Michael
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield
Barnett, Joel
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Archer, Peter
Bence, Cyril
Booth, Albert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boston, Terence







Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boyden, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molloy, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Haseldine, Norman
Moonman, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown, Rt Hn. George (Belper)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Hush D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Buchan Norman
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swlndon)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Horner, John
Norwood, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, AIbert E.


Carter-Jones Lewis
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Coe Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John
Park, Trevor


Crawshaw Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin John
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell Tam
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, George H.(Nottingham, S.)


Daves, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp;Chatham)
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dobson, Ray
Lee. Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Roebuck, Roy


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ellis, John
Loughlln, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Ryan, John


Ennals, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Evans, loan L. (Blrm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Ford, Ben
Mackle, John
Snow, Julian


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swain, Thomas


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mal1alieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swlngler, Stephen


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, Archie
Symonds, J. B.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maxwell, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanclly)
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, David (Consett)







Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Wellbeloved, James
Willliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wells, William (Walsall. N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Yates, Victor


Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



White, Mrs, Eirene
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitlock, William
Winnick, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) ORDER

10.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1020), dated 28th June 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
This Order in Council is, apart from some necessary technical changes, in the same terms as the Order which was passed in this House by a majority of 76 on 17th June and rejected by a majority of nine in another place. Its reintro-duction in its present form is essential so that Her Majesty's Government remain in a position to carry out their international obligation without interruption.
The contents of the Order were fully explained in the debate on 17th June, and I hope that it will be to the convenience of the House if I take up no more of the time of hon. Members at this stage. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, 1 shall be glad to reply to any points raised when I wind up the debate. I ask the House to approve the Order.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate can last only one hour and 30 minutes.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The changes made in the new Order compared with that which came before us a short time ago are no doubt sufficient to meet the Parliamentary rules, but as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has said, it has not materially altered the substance of the previous proposals. The Order defines the actions which the British Government propose to take in response to the requirements of the mandatory clauses of the United Nations resolution applying sanctions to Rhodesia. In our opinion, they add up to a complete boycott of investment, trade and contacts between people. Therefore, it is idle to pretend that they are not designed to force a political settlement by breaking the Rhodesian economy. It is to that

aspect of sanctions that we on this side of the House have consistently objected, and therefore we shall vote against this Order, as we voted against the last.
If we persevere in the debate, it is for two reasons. First, from time to time we have succeeded in our debates in modifying certain injustices. Second, we still have our eye on the main chance— [Interruption]—perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to say, the main chance of achieving a negotiated settlement.
Under the first heading of modifying injustices, there now exists—and this would not have happened but for our debates, to which all parties contributed —the Advisory Committee on Passports under Mr. Justice Cairns, which reviews cases of passports already refused under the Government policy of 1966, and re-examines the cases in which the Commonwealth Secretary has given his decision. The approach can be made either by the individual or the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have a letter from the Commonwealth Secretary dealing with an individual case with which I shall not bother the House. I understand that as a result of our debate dual passport holders are no longer required to make a declaration of political intent when they apply for a passport. That is a complete vindication of our previous debates and an example of how, all hon. Members having contributed to this, the Executive can be influenced by debates in the House.
The passport system and its operation are complicated by the United Nations resolution. There is no doubt of that, for otherwise we should not have had the case the other day of the Cape Coloured teacher, Mr. Jack Jenkins, who was refused a passport. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say how such a mistake can occur. Does it occur because there is confusion over what I have previously described as a black list?
One cannot pursue the passport matter, except as it is related to the Order, but another casualty of the resolution, and therefore to some extent of the Order, is Zambia. I called attention to this in our last debate. She is not exempted from applying the resolution in full. The Prime Minister said in the House


on an earlier occasion that the resolution specially recognised Zambia and other land-locked countries. The implication was that in some way the sanctions could be avoided, but that is not so. It is true that the resolution provides for special assistance to Zambia and other land-locked countries, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it cannot begin to touch Zambia's financial problems, such as that of the revenues earned by the disposal of her copper by means of the transport routes through Rhodesia. Therefore, there is only one answer for Zambia, and that is to go on trading through Rhodesia. What becomes of the sanctions policy when there is the large hole of South Africa, and Zambia and other countries, in order to keep themselves alive and their economies going concerns, are compelled to go on trading?
Again—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to this—what is the position now of British businessmen who are connected with companies operating in Rhodesia? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has had certain correspondence on this matter and he has given me leave to quote from a letter which the right hon. Gentleman wrote to him:
Taking the example used in your letter, if he"—
the businessman—
imports raw materials for the purposes of his business (or, as a director, manager or secretary of a company, assists in or connives at such importation) he will be guilty of an offence against the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that
there is nothing in the Order to stop businesses sending members of their staff from this country to take up positions with their Rhodesian subsidiaries".
In other words, the chairman of a company can send staff out to run the business in Rhodesia but, if they try to import the materials on which the business runs or if they try to export the product which the business manufactures and thus could keep itself alive, they are guilty of an offence. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify this further? It would be the product of a mad-house and really laughable if it was not so serious, because

this attaches a penalty now under the law.
Therefore, what is a business to do? [Interruption.] We must have clarification when a businessman is in danger of breaking the law. Apparently a businessman can freely send people out to Rhodesia to manage and run a business, but the moment he imports materials on which the factory's life depends he is guilty of an offence under the law. If that is so, let the right hon. Gentleman confirm it. But I can only repeat that this would be the politics of a mad-house and would be laughable.
Finally, I turn to what I have described as the main chance in which we are interested. There have been certain political developments in Rhodesia. They could, and I think they should, lead to renewed contact between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Smith. It is notoriously difficult to measure the internal political stresses in another country. It is bad enough here, but to try to do it in any other country is even more difficult. But there have been— and this is a serious point—significant and deep-running differences between, for example, Mr. Harper and Mr. Smith. I cannot tell whether Mr. Smith has now definitely concluded that he and his Cabinet would support a blocking quarter of African votes so that the Africans have unimpeded access to a common rôle with the European, access that cannot be eroded. That is the distilled essence of the matter; that is what the real dispute between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith's Administration is about.
However, I am sure that Mr. Smith is in complete control of his party. There is new evidence of that today. He has quarrelled with a leading member of his Government and that member has had to leave the Government. There must, therefore, be a considerable difference between Mr. Smith and that member. Therefore, I think the time is now ripe for the right hon. Gentleman to take time by the forelock and find out whether Mr. Smith is now ready to approach a new agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government based broadly on the "Tiger" approach and on the proposals which I brought back from Mr. Smith to the Prime Minister not very long ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman now disclose the contents of those proposals?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already explained that if there is to be a successful negotiation it is better that the terms should not be disclosed piecemeal. If the right hon. Gentleman can use those proposals—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise, from either side, is not argument.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the right hon. Gentleman can use those proposals at some future time, well and good. I think that now there may be a new opportunity to get back to a settlement something on the lines of "Tiger". Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite did not like that settlement. I thought that it was fair. The right hon. Gentleman should cease to pursue the sterile and negative policies which have been a feature of the Government's approach during the last few months and should have another try at negotiation.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: As I listened to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), I felt a deep misgiving about the line which he has taken. I remember that three years ago the party opposite, by its speeches and its votes, was committed to the policy of sanctions. It seems to me that since then the Smith Administration—it cannot be called a Government—has moved far along the road towards apartheid. Yet as I listened this evening to the right hon. Gentleman, it seemed to me that his party had abandoned sanctions and had reverted to its traditional rôle of appeasing racialist dictators. That is plainly what Mr. Smith and his colleagues have become.
By giving their encouragement and support to those dangerous men, the Opposition are proving very poor friends to the European settlers in Rhodesia. The Europeans there are now faced by a double threat, which grows more serious every day. There is the threat of which the word "insurgency" is used. I need not say that I deplore the use of armed force in any international or inter-racial dispute if there is any hope

whatever of a peaceful settlement. But we are this year celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the principles of which all parties and all Governments in this country have been committed since 1948. A week or two ago, the Leader of the Opposition went to make a speech across the road to celebrate this anniversary.
The third paragraph of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:
… it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law".
The point I am making is that that Declaration, to which everybody is committed, comes very near to recognising a human right of armed revolt. The exercise of the right has often proved to be mistaken.
Perhaps the freedom fighters in Rhodesia are mistaken, but the grim fact is that the human rights of Africans in Rhodesia have been savagely repressed and the result, the foreseeable result, the result foreseen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been that the freedom fighters have taken up arms. Let no hon. Member underestimate the menace of the freedom fighters—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot discuss the freedom fighters on the Order, which is concerned with certain specific sanctions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that the danger of bloodshed in Rhodesia is so great unless economic sanctions succeed that it is vital that this House, this Government and this nation should do everything in their power to make the economic sanctions succeed.
If I may finish what I have to say-it is only one more word—about the question of insurgency and freedom fighters, it is that unless I am misinformed, the freedom fighters have begun to secure the support of the African population of Rhodesia. Let hon. Members read the article in the Guardian this morning, and study the map which shows the territories which are now held


permanently by the freedom fighters and the places where actions with the freedom fighters have taken place.
I remember the last words spoken to me by Field Marshal Smuts, when I had the honour to hold the office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It was a few months after his defeat in his last general election, and the Nationalists had begun their drive towards apartheid. He said to me, as I left him, "If they go on like this it will end in bloodshed, and if there is bloodshed it will not be the blacks who will leave Africa." This is the fact which faces the Europeans in Rhodesia today.
That is why I argue that the best hope of avoiding bloodshed is to make the United Nations economic sanctions so effective that the Smith régime comes crashing down. The party opposite, eager for appeasement, suspicious of international institutions, constantly repeats that sanctions have been tried and failed. I reply that only now are real sanctions beginning to be applied. I wish that total mandatory sanctions which are now in force had been applied in 1965. I believe that the whole matter might have been liquidated long ago.
But even the partial sanctions, tardily adopted, have produced a very great effect. In June, U Thant gave us some figures based on reports which he had had from the Governments who had been consulted. He gave the figures of Rhodesian exports and imports in 1967, when he compared them with the figures for 1965. In 1965, before sanctions took effect, exports from Rhodesia were £137 million. Last year, they were £16 million, a cut of £121 million—more than 80 per cent. In 1965, imports into Rhodesia were £77·8 million. In 1967, they were £22 million, a cut of 70 per cent. So heavy was the loss of the Rhodesian farmers on the tobacco market that last year the United States exported £35 million worth more of tobacco than they had done before. The farmers are those who are suffering the worst. And, in consequence, there is facing Mr. Smith the very grave problem of the African unemployed.
The Financial Times last week had an article which said that, if present trends continued, within a period of time, the unemployment problem would

amount to ½ million Africans for whom Mr. Smith could find no work. The businessmen are beginning to be very anxious. In April, the Financial Times printed an article which had the headline, "No anxiety about sanctions". Last week its article had the headline, "Rhodesia's winter of discontent". Let hon. Members read that article and see how, item after item, on the short-term and the long-term prospects, the businessmen now are feeling anxiety about the future.
Sanctions have not failed. Even partial sanctions have produced a great effect. I believe that the Government should persevere, and that if they pursue the policy of securing other Governments' help they will in the end, perhaps not so very far hence, bring Smith down. I would urge on the House and on right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they should listen to their former colleague, Lord Alport, who came back and reported not long ago: "I know it's no use talking to Smith". Sanctions must succeed, and I trust that the Government will persevere in their present course.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Let us be clear about one thing, and that is why we are having this debate. It is because the Tory peers, egged on by the Tory Front Bench in this Chamber were led to vote against the previous Order, which was supported by the vast majority of the people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the place where we hear quietly things with which we disagree.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maud-ling) declined to answer when I asked him last time we debated this matter whether the Tory Front Bench had put the Tory peers up to vote against the Order. I can only deduce from his silence that that was the case, and that all that has happened in the last few weeks is the result of a secret meeting— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to this Order.

Mr. Lubbock: I was saying that the reason why this Order is being debated at all this evening is because


of the action of the Tory peers, and this is a despicable manoeuvre on the part of the Tory Party which the Leader of the Opposition, although he may now giggle and smirk on the Front Bench, will live to regret.
Neither on the last occasion nor on this has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said what the Tory alternative policy is. It has been spelled out precisely in many debates what policies this country might follow. We could either continue the present sanctions, which have been proved, I think that it will be admitted on both sides, ineffective; we could intervene with military force in Rhodesia, as the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) would probably like—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lubbock: —we could capitulate to the racialist régime, or we can have the present Order.
What I should like to ask the Tories is to say plainly to the people before the end of this debate what they would like. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) would give in to the illegal régime tomorrow, but I always understood that this was not the official Conservative view. When, in past debates we have discussed sanctions, the Tories have gone with the Government to the extent that these measures had to be taken to bring Smith to his senses. They have altered their tune under pressure from their Right wing. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will condescend to make it plain to the House what his policy is today, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has not told us that tonight—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to intervene, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) must decide whether or not he will give way.

Mr. Lubbock: I have decided, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wishes to intervene—[Interruption.] I am not fussy—

or the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire or the right hon. Member for Barnet, I shall be happy to give way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will now come back to the Order, I think.

Mr. Lubbock: We will come back to the debate, which is really about what is the real policy of the Tory Party. The right hon. Gentleman has said this evening that he has an eye to the main chance, but if he thinks that what he has said represents the majority opinion in the country he is grossly mistaken. The people will not be held up to ransom by a small racist clique—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair wants to hear the debate. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock: —a small racist clique of individuals such as Mr. Harper, who, I am glad to see, has now been dismissed. But let not the right hon. Gentleman delude himself into thinking that because of the dismissal of Mr. Harper the Rhodesian régime has suddenly become a group of people with whom we can properly negotiate. This is only the beginning of the road if Mr. Smith really wishes to show an earnest of his intentions. He could long ago have introduced a constitution based on the six principles. If Mr. Smith had done that we would have been in a position, as the right hon. Gentleman says we are, to begin negotiations today, but I am not convinced, and I do not think that anyone who has studied the ques-tion can be convinced, that merely because of the dismissal of Mr. Harper Mr. Smith has put himself into a position in which we can discuss alternatives—

Mr. Raymond Gower: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Lubbock: No, I have already said that I will not give way.
The right hon. Gentleman may shed crocodile tears, as he did on the last occasion. He is not concerned about the Zambian people, or his hon. Friends would not have opposed aid to the people of Zambia. He knows perfectly well that in the United Nations resolution, for which I am proud that this


country voted, we have provided for increased aid to Zambia, not only by Great Britain but all those who want to bring the Smith régime down.

Mr. Sandys: How many are going to give aid?

Mr. Lubbock: If the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) wishes to intervene, I will give way to him. I was hoping that later he would give us the benefit of his opinion.

Mr. Faulds: He has not prepared a statement. Give him time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wandering away from the debate into personalities. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, but these little pinpricks do not worry me at all. The right hon. Gentleman is free to intervene any time he likes.
I should like the Conservative Party to make its position plain on where it stands on aid to Zambia. I heard hon. Members of the Opposition say that they do not wish to increase aid to Zambia to help her to improve her position.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Sandys.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member asks about aid to Zambia. In my view we ought to give no aid to Zambia so long as they take part in organising and tolerating and condoning infiltration of murderers and saboteurs into Rhodesia.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is most instructive, I am glad that I gave way to him, because he has put to the House a point of view exactly opposite to that of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, whose judgment I more respect on this issue.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. The hon. Member so far has made quite a long speech without one reference to the Order or any part of it. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough

(Sir Harmar Nicholls). He must, however, leave the Chair to decide what is in order. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock: The views of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire on aid to Zambia are infinitely preferable to those of the right hon. Member for Streatham. If we are to make sanctions effective, aid to Zambia has to be increased. It cannot come from Great Britain alone; she must be supported in this task by those other members of the United Nations who have voted for and supported us on the resolution presented there.
I have said what I want to say, and I conclude by asking right hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative Party to state clearly, before we end the debate, what is their policy. I sat through and listened carefully to the debate on the last occasion and at the end of it I was as much at a loss to know their views as I had been at the beginning. The only purpose of this, the second debate on precisely the same Order, is for the people of this country to know what the Tory Party believes on this issue

10.46 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This Motion is the result of a reference to the United Nations which I believed to be so wrong that I resigned the Whip in order to vote against it. It is an Order presented to us by the Government, but not because it is their policy. Indeed they confess that they do not like a good deal of it. We are asked to accept it because they put themselves into a position in which they had to accept policies from somebody else.
Clause 13 contains a statement which is construed—and was put there so that it could be construed—by the Afro-Asians as support of the United Nations for violence and murder. That is why Clause 13 was put there. It was put there in sufficiently ambiguous terms so that we could say that it did not mean that, while they could say that it did mean that. I do not think that that is a happy position for us to find ourselves in. I was opposed to this because I believe it to be illegal and a misuse of the United Nations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers is not in the Order which we are


discussing. He must come to the sanctions dealt with in the Order.

Mr. Paget: It is in the United Nations resolution.

Mr. Speaker: We are not debating the United Nations resolution. We are debating the sanctions which the hon. Member has before him.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, in introducing the Order on the last occasion the Minister said that it would implement a resolution of the United Nations. Surely that entitles me to look at that resolution, which is all that I want to do.
I oppose the Order because it implements a resolution of the United Nations which I believe to be illegal and most injurious to the United Nations. In support of that belief, I quote Mr. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State to Mr. Roosevelt, and Mr. Truman, and one of the founding fathers of the United Nations. He was one of the three men fundamentally responsible for the Charter and he is probably the most distinguished living international lawyer. He said:
The central issue involved in the assault by the United Nations and the United Kingdom against Rhodesia is a patent illegality despite a layer of bland sanctimony.
In my opinion, that sums the position up accurately.
It is illegal for a large number of reasons. First, it is illegal because it was not supported by the concurring votes of the permanent members—which was not only a requirement in the original Charter, but a requirement reconfirmed by amendment of Article XXIII as late as 1953. It is illegal because either this is a colonial rebellion, in which case it is excluded from the responsibility of the United Nations by Chapter 2(7)— after all, the United Nations is not a Holy Alliance whereby colonial Powers band themselves together to repress colonial rebellion; that was not the idea of Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Stalin—or it is an international dispute, and it is only in an international dispute that the United Nations has jurisdiction. That involves the recognition of Rhodesia as being an independent non-member State. Only on those conditions has it any jurisdiction and then a right of hearing is required by Article XXXII before action is taken.
Again, when one comes to the threat of international peace, which again is the foundation for this, what is the threat? The domestic policy of Rhodesia is not acceptable to some of its neighbours. These are precisely the grounds which Hitler gave for Czechoslovakia and Poland being invaded. When, on television the other night, it was proposed to call evidence to support the United Nations respect for law, the only evidence came from a man whose experience was with war crimes trials where the victors sat in judgment on the vanquished for a crime whose first ingredient was being on the losing side.
I also object because I believe that this use of the United Nations is entirely mischievous. In a speech which I made in the House more than 20 years ago I pointed out that the position was not the position of the League of Nations where the many were much stronger and there could have been effective coercion if the many had stuck together. That was never the position under the United Nations. Great nuclear Powers emerged from the war and no majority could coerce and, therefore, the United Nations was organised really as the secretariat of a great-Power concert to make the decisions of the great Powers compulsory as far as the rest of the world was concerned. This depended on the veto, because unless there was great-Power concert there was nothing on which it could act.

Mr. Stanley Henig: On a point of order. I understood that we were discussing the implementation of an Order against Southern Rhodesia. The hon. and learned Member is giving his interpretation of what the United Nations is about. If it is in order for him to do that, will it be in order later for others to put him right on what this is really all about?

Mr. Speaker: I recognise the threat in the hon. Member's point of order. We are discussing sanctions, and I have already suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) might come to the Order.

Mr. Paget: I was concluding by saying that this departure from the veto is represented by this officious and impotent meddling, which is what we are doing


here. We have this agreement. The Afro-Asians wanted war so long as somebody else fought it, and they wanted action against South Africa—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The war we are talking about is sanctions. The hon. and learned Member must address himself to the sanctions.

Mr. Paget: I shall endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker.
When the House originally, I think most mistakenly, consented to sanctions, we were told that their object was to promote negotiations. All other objects were excluded. Now the pretence that they are to promote negotiations has been abandoned. The next thing was that they were to promote a return to legality or to topple Smith. Whatever else they may succeed in doing, it is not that. Instead, we are resorting to a petulant attempt to punish where we cannot correct.
It is the black Africans of Rhodesia who suffer primarily. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, this will mean perhaps half a million African unemployed, and for an African on a subsistence diet unemployment and famine come very close together. That is what we are seeking to do in this attack on the economy. But the Rhodesian economy will unquestionably remain viable, though perhaps at a lower level. The idea of areas being held by infiltration fighters is the most utter nonsense. The Rhodesians' power to maintain order is underwritten by South Africa. They have the full might of South Africa behind them in that.
The cost to our balance of payments continues. For three years I have been able to tell the House with complete accuracy what the effect of our actions was in Rhodesia, and what would happen there. I read in the New Statesman an article by Mr. Hatch of quite astonishing nonsense, in which he said that these increased sanctions have led to this dismissal of Mr. Harper. That is exactly the opposite to the truth. There is a split in Rhodesia: Mr. Smith and his friends still value the British connection and want a link here, and Mr. Harper and his friends want a republic and a close link with South Africa.
That is the issue, and by everything we do that makes the link with Britain seem less attractive, by everything we do that makes it less likely that terms with Britain, which Mr. Smith wants, are available, by that much we weaken his position and strengthen Mr. Harper's. That is really the reason why all this time Smith has had to move to the right, to demand more and more, because we have steadily been making the link with Britain less and less attractive.
Now we come to a situation in which Mr. Smith has been able to take action against Mr. Harper. That is not because of strengthened sanctions. It is the reverse; it is because the Rhodesians, rightly or wrongly, have taken the House of Lords vote as a commitment by the Conservative Party to recognise Rhodesia and come to terms. That action made it appear in Rhodesia, probably rightly, that the link with Britain and terms with Britain would be available. They at least take the view, possibly rightly, possibly wrongly, that Mr. Smith is far more likely to remain a Prime Minister two years hence than the present Prime Minister of Britain.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much interruption from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman shouts "Shame". Does he really believe that the Rhodesians do not think that Mr. Smith is likely to last longer than—

Mr. Faulds: What office did you want?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must learn to behave in the House. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this debate is for an hour and a half; he has had one-sixth of that time.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. I had never understood, Sir, that in this House manners were more important than opinions. I do not apologise for my manners, and I have every intention of stating what I feel in the House.

Mr. Speaker: This is an interesting confession of faith. It has nothing to do with the rules of the House.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) asked me what


office I wanted. I am very glad I did not get it. But let us leave that aside and come back to the debate.
The real tragedy is that the United Nations has been diverted to this matter and, because it is in this state, nobody even suggests that it might do something about Czechoslovakia where there is a real threat to peace. It is irrelevant there. We know that the Russians would tell the Security Council where to put it.
Again, we have the tragedy of Nigeria; massacre and slaughter on a Hitlerian scale. There we have the power. We could open Port Harcourt. A marine commando could establish and impose a cease-fire. This tragedy could be stopped, it is within our power, and it is something which we could do which would be of value. Instead, we simply divert ourselves and the United Nations to upset an economy, when we cannot upset a régime; we make its government more difficult when we have no alternative government, no means of government, no change that we can establish. It is a shocking policy and a shocking mess in which to find the United Nations.

11.4 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: At the beginning of this year I spent a few days in Rhodesia, and hon. Members may like to hear what the ordinary people in Rhodesia will think of the Order. The test for them and for this House should be simply this: will the Order help to bring peace, or not? If it helps to bring understanding and a peaceful settlement, then I would support it, but because I think that it will do the opposite—and I will tell hon. Members why I think it will do the opposite—I will vote against it.
I believe that the Order will fail in the objective the Prime Minister has set out to achieve, and that the ordinary Rhodesian people to whom I talked will never surrender or negotiate under duress, and this is duress. The Rhodesians said to me at great length that they were the same breed as we are ourselves and, just as we would not submit to the horrors of Hitler, they will not submit to the horrors we want to impose on them. They are not prepared to be browbeaten by sanctions any more than we were prepared to be brow-beaten by Hitler. For this reason I am convinced

that these additional sanctions will make a settlement more difficult, if not impossible, and I think the policy is wrong.
The Prime Minister's policy, I remind hon. Members opposite, is that he hopes to produce or induce a more moderate element in Rhodesia that would accept his policy either inside the Smith régime or as an alternative to it. These sanctions will make it impossible for a more moderate element to take charge of affairs in Rhodesia and, therefore, to co-operate with the Commonwealth Secretary and the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister says—and his hon. Friends support him—that Mr. Smith is the prisoner of his own Right-wing extremists. They said to me in Rhodesia that our Prime Minister is the prisoner of his own Left-wing extremists, and it is those members who are trying to make the Prime Minister stick narrowly to the Nibma policy that makes a settlement all the more difficult. This is why this Order is such a tragedy.
The tobacco farmers who are suffering greatly and feeling sanctions severely —I stayed for a weekend on a tobacco farm—said they believed that at the very best the British Government were prepared to risk imposing a second Mau Mau upon them or at the worst to turn their country into a second Congo. [Interruption.] I am reporting to the House what was said to me out there, what people really believe. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did the coloured people say?"] Because they genuinely believe this I am convinced that the ordinary moderate decent people in Rhodesia will never submit to these sanctions and this Order. That is why I think it is such a tragedy that the Government are trying to impose this on them.
I make a practical suggestion. I saw many of the business and trade people, and most of the Ministers, too.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Sir C. Osborne: No. I promised to take only five minutes.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is not giving way.

Sir C. Osborne: Not in five minutes.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Louth is not giving way.

Sir C. Osborne: The Rhodesian people made this suggestion.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose—

Sir C. Osborne: For God's sake, sit down man.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, North) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you had sat down, was that the sort of reference to be made to you?

Mr. Speaker: Sir Cyril Osborne.

Sir C. Osborne: Sir C. Osborne rose—

An Hon. Member: Go and play with your toys.

Sir C. Osborne: I am trying to report to the House what I discovered, and I thought hon. Members would like to hear it. The majority of Rhodesians have very high regard and respect for the Commonwealth Secretary and he is a man they would trust. The Rhodesians suggested to me that if only he could go out there again with the Lord Chancellor, who also created a great impression out there, there would be a chance—I believe there is still—of a settlement.
I cannot believe that any one on either side of the House would prefer war to peace, but there will be no peace through this Order. It is because I believe this so deeply that I beg the Government not to force this through but to have one more look at the situation and try to secure a peaceful settlement, and it is because of that that I feel compelled to vote against the Order.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I find myself among those who give a cautious welcome to this second edition of the Statutory Instrument. The real tragedy to many of us must be that Instruments of this kind were not introduced immediately after U.D.I. I believe that we have to look at the Instrument in the context of the U.N. resolution, the provisions of which it is intended to make effective. On the one hand, I am certain that we can welcome the speedy response

on the mandatory clauses of the resolution. On the other, I am certain that we all share some misgivings about the ambiguities in the Government's position towards those clauses urging positive action in support of the liberation movement and freedom struggle of Southern Africa.
I believe that there are two weaknesses in the international background to this Order. In the first place, there is to be no independent international investigatory machinery and, in the second place, there is to be no international enforcement machinery. When we embark upon the quite expensive operation involved in this Instrument, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us that, if enforcement action becomes necessary, the Government are willing to contemplate appropriate ways in which it can be undertaken.
The next point on which I believe we need some reassurance is what the action of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretaries will be if there is a deliberate attempt by the Governments of South Africa and Portugal to undermine the provisions of the resolution. But while it may be one thing to say that, at this stage, we cannot envisage a headlong confrontation in economic terms with South Africa, it is another thing to say, as is being said by some members of the Government, that we hold as one of our highest priorities the expansion of trade with South Africa. There seems to be a contradiction here which is essentially relevant to this Instrument.
There are two other specific weaknesses in the Instrument. First, it is well known that businessmen in Britain not infrequently pay visits to Rhodesia without their passports being stamped. Why is it that the Government have felt unable to recommend that, save on humanitarian grounds or grounds of emergency, visits to Rhodesia should be prohibited unless undertaken with prior Governmental approval? Next, we should like to know why the Government have felt unable at this stage, when trying to bring home the gravity of the situation, to undertake action in terms of an embargo on postal and telecommunications?
The next point on which we should like some comment from my right hon. Friend concerns our attitude towards Zambia as the consequences of this new


measure become known, because no country has paid a higher price for the international action following U.D.I. than Zambia. We are frequently told that £24 million has already been subscribed by Britain towards Zambia, but this is not good enough because the distortion of the Zambian economy continues and we have a lasting obligation to Zambia.
The next point in relation to Zambia is that, at this juncture, as international action is intensified, she becomes still more vulnerable in defence terms, and if we really mean business in the context of the Instrument we should be told what the Government intend to do in fulfilling our defence commitments to Zambia as well.
The real value of the Instrument is that, even if it does not secure the immediate downfall of the régime in Rhodesia, it will deny it the fruits of victory and will thereby help to keep the issue alive. The significance of the measures being taken is that they will enable the freedom struggle on the spot to continue. There are some extraordinary misconceptions in the House about the freedom struggle. There should be no illusions about the freedom fighters. Freedom fighting has obviously come to stay It is obviously going to pass into the leadership of increasingly militant people. The failure by this House and this country to demonstrate beyond doubt our commitment to the interests of the majority in Southern Africa will ensure that the situation deteriorates into an ugly racial confrontation with untold cost in terms of human suffering.

11.16 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I managed to catch your eye in the first debate after U.D.I. was declared. I remember that on that occasion I condemned, as I still condemn, U.D.I. as being both wrong and foolish. At the same time, I then said that in my view sanctions in Rhodesia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said a few moments ago, would be more likely to prevent a political settlement than to attain one. All I would say is that it is worth considering now who has been proved right in that proposition.
As I understand it, having listened to every debate on this subject, the position

of the Government is that even after what has taken place, it is still the duty of this Parliament to continue to enforce sanctions even though, in the words of Ministers in the past, it is admitted that they are bound in the first place, and probably in the second place, to hurt innocent people. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State. We all know that it is always the poorer sections of the community who get hurt first, whereas the better-off White Rhodesians can, in the present boom conditions in South Africa, always manage to get alternative means of improving their economic position.
We are told that even though we are bound to hurt innocent people it is still our job to keep on enforcing these sanctions. We are told that it is right to continue enforcing the sanctions even though they are very expensive to our balance of payments at this critical time in our economic history. The reason, we are told, is that this is such a great moral issue that it transcends all other matters, including our balance of payments.
I have never been convinced by this argument since the Prime Minister said that this great moral issue could not be extended to cover the case of an economic confrontation with Portugal or South Africa. A great moral issue which can be measured in terms of hard currency that one needs to earn hardly amounts to a great moral issue at all. There is no great moral issue involved if we say that we can afford to have a battle with Rhodesia but not if it means real damage to our economy through confrontation with South Africa or with Portugal.
We are told that we must support these sanctions even though they have been proved ineffective so far in obtaining a political settlement. The Secretary of State himself—I do not say that he was trapped—was frank enough to say recently that, so far, they had had the effect of strengthening the régime in Salisbury and not weakening it. We are told that even though it has not proved successful up to now in attaining a political settlement, nevertheless, we must go blindly along this path.
I wish to put three alternative propositions to the Government. First, in any form of retaliation or sanctions we


should be guided by the fact that if they are going to hurt anybody, they should be calculated to hurt the régime in Salisbury and not the people. Second, we should have due regard to our economic position, our balance of payments and the realities of the situation. Third, our efforts in the matter of sanctions—or of ending them—should not hinder a negotiated settlement. Those are the three propositions.
Are not those three conditions exactly, almost in his own words, what the right hon. Gentleman told the people of Gibraltar when he was last on the Rock, when they recently asked for retaliation against Spain? That, word for word, is what he told the people of Gibraltar— that the policies should hurt the Spanish Government, but not the Spanish people; that they should have due regard to our economic position, because we could not afford an economic fight with Spain over a moral issue; and, thirdly, that they should not stand in the way of a negotiated political settlement with Spain.
Perhaps we can be told tonight why one set of rules applies in one case, but not in the other. How many more months and years are we to go on with this sterile policy which is not getting us anywhere? Is the Secretary of State to come here again in one, two, three, or four years, if the Government are still in office, and tell us that all he has to say is that we must go on with the sanctions because we have nothing else? Is there no point at which the Government will realise that this policy has failed and review it fundamentally and from start to finish?

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Like the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), I have listened to and taken part in most of the debates on Rhodesia since the days of U.D.I. in 1965. Going back to those debates, it is distressing to see the movement in the views of the Conservative Party. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) will accept it from me that I say this with no great pleasure and that it is most distressing to men of good will on both sides of the House and outside it to see either of the two great parties of State giving in to its extremists. The Conservative Party has given in to its extremists, and the right

hon. Gentleman was put up to try to justify an unjustifiable case.
What did we get from the right hon. Gentleman as opposed to what we have had from his so-called supporters? There has been no disavowal from the Conservative Front Bench of the whole policy of sanctions, nothing resembling what the hon. Member for Torquay has said, that they have been against sanctions since 1965, that the policy has totally failed and should be scrapped. We have had none of that exercise.
First, the right hon. Gentleman patted himself on the back for persuading the Government slightly to amend their policy on passports and, secondly, he shed a few crocodile tears about Zambia, and I found that extraordinarily distasteful. Thirdly, he said that, in view of the slight political change which has taken place in Salisbury, there should be a fresh attempt at negotiation.
That is what the Front Bench has said, but that is not what the back benchers have said and it is high time in the interests not only of the House of Commons, but of the country and the whole world, that the Conservative Party made crystal clear where it stands. Over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, I believe, that the Conservative Party had to be led from the centre. Whether it has to be led from the left, from the centre, or from the right, it is time that it was led.
There are three simple questions which we all have to ask about this Order. The first is whether the general policy of sanctions which the House and the country have followed since U.D.I. is broadly right. At one stage, the Opposition Front Bench agreed that it was right and there was the famous debate about oil sanctions when the Opposition Front Bench supported the sanctions and when 30 or 40 of the Conservative Right wing went into one Lobby and some of its Left wing went into the other. Is that the position now? Does the Conservative Party still support the general policy of sanctions? Does it believe that the imposition of economic sanctions is the right way to deal with the whole Rhodesia problem?
Until this debate, I had always believed that that was the policy of the Conservative Party. Some of us on this


side of the House who, in November, 1965, had the greatest misgivings about whether the policy of economic sanctions was right, nevertheless went along with it. Certainly, having gone along with it at that time, when three years later it looks as though it is now having some economic effect in Rhodesia, this is not the time to go back on it.
Secondly, should we continue that policy? I was interested in one illuminating flash that came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire when he said that we should make a fresh attempt to negotiate. Why should we make a fresh attempt to negotiate? Because, said the right hon. Gentleman, there has been a change in the political situation in Salisbury.
I ask again: because or in spite of sanctions? Is it because over the period of three to four years the Rhodesian Government, and Mr. Smith in particular, have realised that this country is not prepared to hand over the permanent government of 4 million black Africans to the entrenched white minority rule of 200,000 Europeans? If that has sunk home in Salisbury that might account for the change. If that is the reason, that is a very strong reason not only for continuing with the policy of sanctions, but for trying to intensify it.
The third question is whether, by this Order, we make the general policy of sanctions more or less effective. Obviously, sanctions will be more effective. They will be more effective for two reasons. First, they will apply to a larger quantity of goods, and, secondly, they will be enforced by a larger number of nations. For those two reasons, I believe that this policy of applying mandatory sanctions will make the general economic strains on Rhodesia that much greater. If the policy of sanctions was not going to be effective we would not have had the speeches that we have had from the back benches opposite. If hon. Gentlemen opposite believed that this policy was an ineffective gesture, I do not think that the hon. Member for Torquay would have made the speech that he did. Nor do I believe that some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have been howling and giggling as much as they have.
Therefore, I conclude that the three questions that have to be answered are: first, do we accept the general policy; secondly, do we continue with that general policy; and, thirdly, does this Order make that policy more effective? The answer from this side of the House is yes, and it is time the right hon. Gentleman gave a clear answer for his side of the House.

11.27 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I had not intended to intervene, but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker). Who would have thought, 18 months or two years ago, that a former Secretary of State would have almost revelled in the statement that there were 500,000 Africans unemployed and very substantial hardship amongst Rhodesian farmers?
Most of us in this House originally voted for sanctions on the basis that they were not vindictive. We have moved a long way from those days. The Government know perfectly well that the more the incidence of sanctions is screwed down the less enforceable they are and that, if sanctions are not enforceable they achieve at once the worst of every known world. They drive all moderate opinion straight into the arms of the more extreme. If anybody suggests now that the present government of Rhodesia are more moderate than it was in the days of Sir Roy Welensky or Mr. Field, the answer is that it is not. We have heard some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen talking in retrospect as though if Sir Roy Welensky were still in power he would be somewhere to the left of Mr. Gladstone. This is what happens if we go on with sanctions which are not enforceable.
I have never understood the double thinking of the Labour Party about the limitation of power. In other parts of the world—the Far East, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere—it almost revels in the limitation of power to which it has brought to this country. We have to get out of the Persian Gulf and the Far East by 1970 because we have neither the power to stay nor influence to exert in that part of the world. But in some curious way, in Rhodesia, the Government will not accept any limitation of


power. I am all for the six principles— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in spite of the jeers. There are only two ways of getting the six principles, or anything like them. Either we negotiate about them, or we enforce them. If the Government cannot enforce them, they have to negotiate.
There are some hon. Members opposite who wish to enforce them. Let me say straight away that quite apart from other reasons, logistically any idea of using force is out. It is a complete nonsense. Therefore, if the Government cannot enforce them, they have got to negotiate. The longer they put off negotiations, the more difficult they become and the less likely they are to get what they want.
The sanctions boat is so full of water before it leaves port, and is shipping water so badly, that it is not seaworthy. That is what happens when we have the United Nations mandatory sanctions, which are not enforceable and when half the members of the United Nations are laughing at us behind our backs. I beg right hon. Gentleman opposite to take time by the forelock and negotiate before it is too late and final disaster settles upon them.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: The only comment that I would like to make on the remark of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) that he and his party are all for the six principles is that these days they seem to be all for the six principles in principle so long as they are not asked to put them in any way into practice.
The general issues which have been raised in this short debate about the United Nations and other wider matters were thoroughly thrashed out in the long debate that we had on 17th June. At the end of that debate, the Opposition suffered a decisive defeat in the House and a moral defeat in another place, where all those of both the great independent groups of opinion who voted voted with the Government and against the Conservative Opposition. I therefore want to confine myself, in the few minutes at my disposal, to answering some of the points which have been raised during tonight's debate.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who opened the debate for the Opposition, asked about the position of British firms and their directors in Rhodesia. Perhaps I might put the matter on record since it is, I know, of great concern to many business undertakings. The Rhodesian subsidiaries of British registered companies are within the scope of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order that we are discussing.
If a subsidiary's activities are among those which are forbidden by the Order, the subsidiary commits an offence, but the directors, whether or not they are resident in Rhodesia, do not necessarily share in the company's criminal liability. They are liable only if they assist in, consent to or connive at that offence or if it is attributable to any neglect on their part.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a letter which I had sent to his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and he poked a little gentle fun at some of the terms of that letter, in which I had said that British business men could still travel to Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the letter fully, and perhaps I might now do so. I said:
 We are not prohibiting travel to Rhodesia.
I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is urging that we should prohibit travel to Rhodesia. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that we have deliberately kept communications open, because we think that this is important in terms of influencing opinion in Rhodesia and bringing about the settlement which we all seek.
I went on in the letter to say, however, that
There is nothing in the Order to stop businesses sending members of their staff from this country to take up positions with their Rhodesian subsidiaries. There are a variety of reasons for sending staff to Rhodesia and many need not, in fact, involve the persons concerned in any sanctions-breaking activity.
That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman omitted.
But if someone working in Rhodesia contravenes the provisions of our sanctions legislation he will be rendering himself liable to prosecution.


I must ask the Opposition whether they support or oppose us on this, because there is no difference of principle in what we are doing from what we have been doing.
The position as described above",
as I said in my letter to the right hon. Member for Barnet,
has, of course, applied for a long time to transactions involving the goods and commodities that were covered by the previous Security Council resolution of 16th November, 1966.
What is happening here is that the matter is being applied more extensively, but there is no difference of principle. We carried the Opposition with us in the past, and I do not begin to understand how the Opposition now manage to justify the adoption of their present opposition to the Order.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, coloured citizens from Rhodesia who arrived in a liner from South Africa a few days ago. He raised once again the bogey: is there a black list? I have tried to be very frank with the House about this and to make the matter as plain as possible. Of course, the situation in which Mr, and Mrs. Jenkins found themselves was that they arrived in this country with travel documents issued by the illegal Rhodesian régime. These come under the United Nations resolution and this Order, but since they started from Rhodesia before the Order was made we allowed them to come into this country, although that is not allowed once the Order is in full operation.
It was then discovered that their legal position was confused because they did not have proper legal entitlement to be considered pre-I.D.I. Rhodesian citizens, and it seemed they might be South African citizens. We provided them with documentation, with certificates of identity, on which they could continue their journey, and resolve their own status when they got back to their own country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) all raised the special position of Zambia and also that of some of the other countries in a similar situation, and I would like in reply

to them, to say that we have always recognised that those countries, Zambia and Botswana and other countries, have a special position, and have done what they can to free themselves from dependence on Rhodesia for goods and services. We have certainly done much to help them, but I know that great difficulty still remains for Zambia and other countries.
That is why the Government suggested, in the course of the discussions in New York, that the difficulties of these landlocked States should be specifically recognised in the United Nations resolution. That proposal did not meet with general approval and we did not press it, but the United Nations Charter, as the House will know, does contain provisions protecting the position of countries like these, and that position, of course, remains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West raised the question of contingency aid for Zambia, and so did the hon. Member for Orpington. As the House knows, President Kaunda is due to arrive in this country tomorrow for talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are very glad to welcome him here, and I am sure that the question of economic sanctions will be an important topic amongst others which will be discussed. For our part, we have given altogether so far £24 million in special contingency aid related to the situation created by I.D.I., and the Zambian Government know that further support of this kind cannot be supplied by the Government in present conditions.
We have, however, a substantial continuing aid programme for Zambia in various other fields such as technical assistance, and we hope that one of the results of the United Nations resolution will be to persuade other members of the United Nations, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, to do what we have been seeking to do during the last two years, and to match the kind of aid which we have given so far.
A number of hon. Members, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, have pointed out that, since we last debated Rhodesia, on 17th June, there has been a good deal of political activity in Salisbury. In particular, there has been the announcement on 4th July of Mr. Harper's resignation. It is still too early


to assess the consequences of this resignation, but I think that we should be careful not to rate them too high. The House will know that the Rhodesia Front Party executive has been meeting in Salisbury today and that a large majority has supported Mr. Smith.
We will, of course, watch carefully for any signs of a more liberal attitude on the part of the rôgime. If we had good reason on other grounds to believe that the rôgime were ready to return towards an acceptance of our six principles, then the dismissal of Mr. Harper will help to increase confidence in the prospects for an honourable settlement. But, so far, there has been no sign from Salisbury that Mr. Smith has abandoned his reservations about majority rule, or his belief in the need to retain provisions which would allow retrogressive amendment of the constitution.
Indeed, one can only record that if Mr. Smith is to the left of Mr. Harper there is no evidence that he is to the left of his own Whaley Commission— indeed, rather the contrary. And the Whaley aim of ultimate parity between the races at some unspecified time in the future is patently inconsistent with the six principles that the right hon. Gentleman laid down first of all and that we have carried on. Since 17th June, Mr. Smith has failed to respond either to our suggestion in that debate that he should publish the proposals he made to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire so that public opinion in both countries could make its own judgment about them, or to the challenge to declare that he was ready to accept a real blocking mechanism.

It is, as it always has been, our object to work for an honourable settlement consistent with our principles and pledges, as soon as the right conditions exist. Though any lessening of extreme Right-wing influence in Salisbury is to be welcomed, we shall need more evidence of the elimination of this influence and more proof that the régime is ready to return to the principles laid down by successive Governments. I can, however, assure the House that once we do see hope of making some real progress we will not be slow to follow it up. Meantime, the best hope, in my view, of making progress is to make an international reality of the new United Nations resolution. The Rhodesian leaders are most likely to be ready for a settlement acceptable to the international community when they become convinced that the alternative is an endless political and economic isolation.

The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) talked about morality. The difference between South Africa and Rhodesia is that we have a direct responsibility for Rhodesia. I do not understand the position of hon. Members opposite on this issue, but if they are not prepared to take their stand with us on the morality of the responsibility for about 93 per cent.—the African population in Rhodesia—let me put British interests to them, because in seeking to turn down this Order tonight they are refusing to face the businessmen and exporters of other countries with the same sort of burdens that they are prepared to see our businessmen continue to carry.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 242.

Division No. 281.]
AYES
[11.42 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Boston, Terence
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Chapman, Donald


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James
Coe, Denis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Conian, Bernard


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bradley, Tom
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cronin, John


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Rt Hn. George (Belper)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
 Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechtord)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dewar, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dickens, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Mn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Reynolds Rt Hn G. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
Lester, Miss John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ellis, John
Lewis' Ron (Carllsle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire S.)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David
Lomas Keneth
Robinson,,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson,, W.O.J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


FAULDS, ANDREW
Lubbock Eric
Roebuck, Roy


Fernyhough, E.
Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Ted (Dartington)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
MacDermot, Niall
Short.Mrs.Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Ford, Ben
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzle,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Slater, Joseph


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Swingler, Stephen


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth
Taverne Dick


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, David
Thomas,' Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton Ernest


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thorpe Rt Hn Jeremy


Hamling, William
Mendeleon, J. J.
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Rapheal


Harper, Joseph
MilIan, Bruce
Urwin T. W.


Harrison. Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley Eric G.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace George


Hatterslev, Roy
Molly, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moonman, Eric
Watkins Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitsman David


Henig, Stanley
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morr,s Charle. R (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Whitaker Ben


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Moyle, Roland
White, Mrs, Erene


Hootey, Frank
Murray, Albert
Whitlock, William


Horner, John
Neal, Harold
Willev Rt. Hn. Frederick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Williams Alan (Swansea, W.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborought)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell,, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon
Willis, Rt. H. George


Hoy, James
O' Malley, Brain
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson William (Coventry, S.)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Winnick, David


Hynd, John
Oswald, Thomas
Winstanley, Dr. M.P.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Yates, Victor


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, Trevor
Mr. J. D. Concannon and




Mr. loan L. Evans.







NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead) 
Grant, Anthony
Nott, John


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
 Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peyton, John


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter 
 Hornby, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildlord)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hunt, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Bryan, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jones, Arthur (Normants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, H. P. G.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharpies, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cordle, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Berestord (Spelthorne) 
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourite, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn,Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) 
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Loveye, W. H.
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Tllney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wlngfield
McMaster, Stanley
van strauhenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maginnis, John E.
Waddington, David


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whltelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fisher, Nigel
Mill, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone) 
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Clover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar



Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Goodhew, Victor
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1020), dated 28th June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]

OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVICE

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: It is not very often that we have an opportunity of discussing the problems of the small territories—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members not taking part in the debate leave the Chamber if they do not wish to hear it.

Mr. Godman Irvine: —and on this occasion I think it would not be inappropriate if I took the opportunity of saying how much we in this House appreciate the service which is given by those serving in these small territories. Although we do not have many opportunities of discussing their conditions, or the work they do, I know that many Members greatly appreciate their work.
It came as a surprise to me that the Plowden Report made no reference to Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. I was under the impression that once the Plowden Report had been accepted all those who were serving in the two different branches of Her Majesty's Service would be enabled to serve in any of the others, but it appears that it was never possible for those who were serving in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service to transfer to the Home Civil Service, to the Commonwealth Relations Office, or to the Diplomatic Service.
On 27th July, 1967, the Minister made it clear in his reply to one of my Questions that it was not possible for these officers to transfer to the Diplomatic Service, and went on to say that there was a supplementary competition, but the limiting factor about the supplementary competition is that those who are successful in transferring as a result of it receive appointments which are roughly equivalent to those of the people who

have just come down from the universities, and this means that those who are, shall we say, aged 35, or are experienced district officers, do not find that a suitable opening for them.
The problem to which I wish to refer tonight is of interest to those who are serving not only throughout the South Pacific, which contains the territories to which I particularly wish to refer, but the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Solomon Islands, and the New Hebrides. I understand that the arrangement with the Fiji Overseas Service ends in December, so this will be a matter of interest to those in Fiji, too. It is, in fact, a matter of interest to those who are serving throughout the world. It is not only a matter for the South Pacific.
It is from my own observations that the points I want to put to the Minister tonight have arisen, because, owing to the loyalty and the inhibitions of the service I have found that those who are working in different parts of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are particularly silent about the conditions under which they work.
I have put down a series of four Questions to successive Ministers, the first in June, 1967, the last in April, 1968. In the last answer which I received reference was made to the position then being such that there was a breathing space, and the Minister said that very shortly he hoped that he would be able to discuss further proposals with those who were serving abroad. But representations had been made to the Commonwealth Office in August, 1966, and it is 15 months since a staffing mission went to the Solomon Islands to discuss these matters.
I hope, therefore, that tonight the Minister is in a position to give us, if not a complete answer to the problem, at least a definite date when he will be able to bring forward some proposals to deal with the matter. It is important that there should be a definite answer to these problems, because the officers serving abroad want to know what their long-term future is.
It is vital not only to them. It is vital to the territories in which they are serving, and the staffing of these territories. It is vital because some of these people at least feel that there is a


lack of interest here in what they are doing, and in their future. Finally, it is vital because there is a loss of first-class men from the service because of this uncertainty which they feel is surrounding them.
There are four difficulties, in particular, to which I should like the Minister to direct his attention. First, officers in the permanent and pensionable Service no longer have any prospect of promotion on transfer to other territories. They see colleagues who happen to have been serving in territories which have received independence getting substantial compensation for loss of their careers and also quick promotion under the new Governments they are serving.
The second difficulty is that there are very limited opportunities for advancement in the territories in which they are still serving. These officers feel considerable aggravation that senior officers come on transfer from other parts of the Commonwealth by appointment on contract to senior posts. Those officers have already been compensated for loss of career. Sometimes other officers come from the home Civil Service and are put in a position superior to some of those in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
The third point is that they face stagnation in their own posts and grave curtailment of their pension prospects, not only because they have no prospect of being promoted or improving their position, but also because of the salary scales available in the smaller and poorer and less advanced territories.
The fourth difficulty is that the officers are immobilised from seeking alternative careers by the loss of pension rights on resignation. They feel that they must, therefore, go on serving where they are, whereas the contract officer not only gets a gratuity about equal to the capitalisation of the former's putative pension which is earned by the same amount of service, but also qualifies for it over a relatively very short contract period, and therefore retains his mobility.
There was a considerable increase in the salary scales in April, 1967, and I am sure that those who are serving are suitably appreciative. But the officers feel that they should be able to opt for a compensation scheme comparable to

those which have been introduced where internal self-government has been granted, with appropriate modification. There are three things I should like to say about that.
First, the members of the Service already face an effective loss of career by stagnation. Their compensation will be based on their final salary, and, therefore, they have not got a very rosy future.
Second, internal self-government is not a prerequisite under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme for introducing a compensation scheme. Therefore, under that ordinance, the Minister could introduce such a scheme if he were so minded.
Finally, the compensation scheme is an established machinery. It is eminently suited to the problem, and should be introduced. If the Minister feels that in some way this would mean that a political inference was to be read into it, it should be introduced in some other guise, so that that difficulty would not arise.
There are four objectives that the Minister might—

Sir George Sinclair: Would my hon. Friend say that the arrangements of the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau in this country need to be maintained and strengthened while there are people in the difficulties that he has very eloquently described, because it has been able to help to redeploy this very good resource of talent and experience into other occupations in this country?

Mr. Godman Irvine: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but the problem to which I am asking the House to direct its mind is the problem of keeping the first-class men in the jobs where they are now serving. In the small territories it is necessary that those who are already serving and who have the experience should stay there, and if the Minister can say something tonight to encourage them to stay there that will be preferable to getting them a good job at home.
I will refer briefly to four objections I can see to my suggestion. The first is that the standard of compensation might be regarded by the Minister as far too generous. Should the Minister feel that, it would be quite simple to


introduce a modifying factor of, say 0·50, or 0·75 as an incentive to retain the experienced officer. If that were done I feel confident that those who are serving the Commonwealth in these territories would wish to remain there. It would enable them to continue in the work which they are doing and which they find satisfactory, and would increase tremendously the morale of the service.
The second objection might be that the terms and conditions of service are a matter for the territorial Government. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that when the service was set up in 1954 those who entered were told that this matter would be closely studied and vigilantly watched, and this would, therefore, be a very weak argument for the Minister to use.
The third objection is that it is the luck of the draw. It might be said that one doctor or barrister does better than another because he is fortunate enough to be serving in the right place at the light time. That is an argument which is not analogous to my proposal. A similar analogy might be that the Minister would say that all those who were serving in the Army up to the rank of major would be the regular chaps, but those serving in the senior ranks were to be short service officers, retired officers or even officers from another army.
The last objection is that this is a novel suggestion. On 9th April, 1967, the Minister admitted in answer to a Question I put down that the officers' career prospects have suffered. If it is a novel suggestion, it is so because this problem has not arisen before.
I ask the Minister, first, to give a definite date when he will be able to do something to enable officers serving abroad to plan for the future, and, secondly, to make quite certain that there is a long-term future for those who are serving in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I and other hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) for bringing up this matter. I have had the privilege of visiting the Pacific territories as often as any hon. Member and I hope to be there again during the next few weeks.

In fact some records put me still as being in Fiji.
Those of us who have seen the dedicated way in which officers are serving, with no long-term career prospects must be filled with admiration for them. Whilst I think that the pay structure is right, or at least very much better now, it is the actual career structure and the future of these dedicated officers that ought to engage our attention.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to do as my hon. Friend recommends and either put forward a scheme now or name a date when he will do so.

12.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Dissatisfaction undoubtedly exists among the officers who have been championed by the hon. Members for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) and Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) tonight. That dissatisfaction is completely understandable.
The main cause is that Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service officers joined at a time when they had reasonable career expectations and could assume that they would not spend their whole career in the Western Pacific. Rapid decolonisation has meant that the opportunities for transfer out of the Western Pacific, in particular, have dwindled, and many of these officers who came to the Western Pacific in the expectation that they would not have to serve there for longer than the normal period of seven years have now served longer.
I find that today more than four out of five H.M.O.C.S. officers have been in the Western Pacific for more than seven years, and, however important their work is, the limitations of the often lonely environment in which they work must affect their morale. These officers feel that serving in these remote areas they have been forgotten men in the Service and that they have, in consequence, suffered not only as regards career prospects, but also as regards salaries and suchlike benefits.
There have been those two forms of dissatisfaction. The first is the one that arose out of the introduction of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme in 1961, and, since the Pacific territories are poor, overseas service aid benefits tended to be kept


low so as not to create an excessive gap between the expatriate and local earnings. This was bearable as long as officers could look forward to transfer out of the Pacific. Today, this is scarcely possible, and in recognition of this fact new levels of O.S.A.S. benefits were approved as from April, 1967, to make service in the Pacific comparable with service elsewhere, and I think it can now be said that dissatisfaction on that score at any rate has been dispelled.
The second form of dissatisfaction arises out of the discrepancy between H.M.O.C.S. officers receiving O.S.A.S. benefits and home Civil Service secondment terms, the latter being more generous. The reason for the difference is that the H.M.O.C.S. officers have opted for a career overseas while the home civil servants have uprooted themselves for one tour or possible two tours in the course of a home-based career.
The hon. Member for Rye was particularly concerned with the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. The representations of the Designated Permanent and Pensionable Officers Association were investigated by a staffing mission from the Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development in April, 1967, and in reply to the hon. Gentleman on 9th April I informed him that as a result the level of the expatriate officers' emoluments there was substantially increased from April, 1967, and that, in addition, we were working on measures to improve conditions of service in the longer term to retain the experienced staff as necessary to keep the administration going while meeting their reasonable claim for recognition that their career prospects had suffered.
The problem in the Protectorate, which also exists in the New Hebrides and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, is probably the most acute example of the staff problem created by the process of decolonisation, to which I referred. All serving H.M.O.C.S. officers in dependent territories face the fact that the career prospects which they had originally envisaged when they joined the service have in some measure diminished. In a territory like Hong Kong, where about 1,200 officers serve, the problem can be mitigated by the size and salary levels of the

local public service. But in the Western Pacific the curtailment of career prospects has hit the individual particularly hard.
As I have said, we recognise this problem and we believe that the longer term measures which are under consideration will restore the morale of the officers serving in the Pacific and also take account of the frustration of their career expectations, especially as these cannot be restored so far as the overseas service is concerned. I hope that these measures will be discussed with the Governments and staffs concerned later this year. Beyond saying that, I cannot give hon. Gentlemen satisfaction on the date as to when something specific may come forward, but the discussions will go on.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: But the hon. Gentleman has made no progress since 9th April, 1968, when he said that these matters would be discussed shortly.

Mr. Whitlock: Some progress has been made and, as I have said, these things will continue to be discussed and later this year it may be possible for me to make an announcement. But at this stage I cannot go further.
We continue to recruit large numbers of people on behalf of the overseas countries. In general, this is on short-term contract and carries no guarantee of continued employment since, as local staffs gain experience, recruitment from overseas is bound to decline. In the case, however, of the Western Pacific High Commission territories, although it is no longer possible to offer a lifetime career, and consequently membership of the H.M.O.C.S., in order to bridge the gap until local officers become available, the territorial Governments are engaging professional staff in certain fields, particularly administrative cadets on long term contracts of 10 years' duration. So the pattern is inevitably changing. But whatever the measures devised they cannot restore the days when the unified colonial services provided a career for a lifetime.
Far from decrying the achievements of the Colonial Service or of serving members of the H.M.O.C.S., these developments—and the disadvantages which they brought to some of these officers— serves to emphasise how much they have achieved and are still achieving in carrying on under great difficulty their


task of leading the peoples of the dependent territories towards self-government and independence. In recognition of the special position of H.M.O.C.S. officers who are employed on pensionable terms as servants of the Governments of British dependent territories, a new post of Staff Liaison Officer for that service has been created in the Ministry of Overseas Development. Sir John Field, K.B.E., C.B.E., retiring Governor of St. Helena, has been appointed to the post and has assumed his duties today. He will be responsible primarily for supervising the interests of and maintaining contact with all permanent and pensionable officers of H.M.O.C.S. He will also advise on general questions in connection with the employment of expatriate officers, both pensionable and contract. He will be visiting these territories at intervals to keep in touch with the

Governors and the staffs there about personnel matters.
I hope, therefore, from what I have said that hon. Gentlemen will see that we are very much aware of the problem they have spotlighted and are doing our best to overcome it. I know that the hon. Member for Rye, in particular, will continue to watch over the interests of these officers, who are doing such a worthwhile job in extremely trying circumstances, and I hope that, at a later stage, we will be able to make a further announcement about the results of the discussions we are conducting that will be pleasing to some of the people he has spoken so well for tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.